<$^ZB%^ 


*     MAR  Zy  1900      * 


,^ 


BS    543    .L68    1899 

Lowrie,  Walter,  1868-1959. 

The  doctrine  of  Saint  John 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SAINT  JOHN 


THE 


Doctrine  of  Saint  John 


an  C-00av^  in  UBibUfar^ljeolog^ 


/ 


WALTER   LOWRIE,  M.A. 

MISSION    l-RIilST    IN    THE   CITY    MISSION,    PHILADELPHIA 


LONGMANS,   GREEN,   AND    CO. 

91  AND  93  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York 

LONDON    AND   BOMBAY 

1899 


Copyright,  1S99, 
By  Longmans,  Green,  and  Co. 


AU  rights  reserved. 


John  Wilson  and  Son,  Cambridge,  U.S.A. 


TO  THE 
VERY   LEARNED   FACULTY 

OF 

^Princeton   S^beoloQical  ^eminatg, 

TO   WHOSE   TUITION    1    OWE   THE    INCEPTION    OF   THIS   STUDY, 

AS   I    OWE    ITS   COMPLETION    TO   THE   OPPORTUNITY 

OF   FOREIGN    STUDY    WHICH    I    ENJOYED    AS 

NON-RESIDENT     FELLOW     OF 

THEIR    SCHOOL, 

I    HAVE    THE    HONOR    TO    DEDICATE 
THIS    BOOK. 


N.  B.  —  The  system  of  scripture  reference  which  is  here 
adopted  has  for  some  years  been  used  in  Germany,  and  has 
been  lately  adopted  in  certain  standard  English  works.  It 
is  especially  convenient  for  the  present  purpose,  since  the 
references  are  in  the  main  to  but  two  books,  the  Gospel 
and  the  First  Epistle  of  S.  John.  The  larger  numeral  refers 
to  the  chapter;  the  smaller,  to  the  verse.  The  Gospel  is 
always  intended  when  no  other  reference  is  indicated,  ex- 
pressly or  in  the  context.  S.  John's  Epistles  are  denoted 
by  the  Roman  numerals  I.,  II.,  and  III.  Other  writings 
are  quoted  by  name,  abbreviated  as  usual. 


Preface 

This  essay  was  originally  presented  as  an  academic 
thesis.  During  the  years  which  have  since  elapsed, 
I  have  followed  up  the  study  with  interest,  although 
I  have  never  had  time  to  devote  myself  professedly 
to  it.  This  presentation  of  the  subject,  although  it  is 
far  more  than  a  mere  revision,  reproduces  substan- 
tially the  conception  of  the  earlier  study ;  and  it  is  set 
forth  with  the  more  confidence,  because  it  has  thus 
stood  the  test  of  time,  of  broader  study,  and  of  more 
mature  reflection. 

This  essay  aims  at  interpreting  the  theology  of 
S.  John  as  a  whole.  There  is  an  abundance  of 
detailed  exegetical  studies  of  S.  John's  writings; 
there  are  also  many  valuable  studies  of  the  several 
component  parts  of  S.  John's  theology :  but  it  ap- 
pears as  if  no  one  had  seriously  undertaken  to  do 
for  S.  John  what  has  in  a  measure  been  accomplished 
in  the  case  of  S.  Paul ;  —  to  give  such  an  exposition 
of  his  thought  as  shall  comprise,  not  only  all  of  his 
theology  —  in  the  sense  that  every  topic  of  his 
theology  is  discussed  between  the  covers  of  a  single 
book,  —  but  his  theology  as  a  whole,  as  a  system. 
It  would  not  be  difficult  to  arrange  the  several  topics 
of  the  Johannine  doctrine  according  to  the  familiar 


viil  PREFACE 

rubrics  of  ecclesiastical  theology  or  according  to  any 
arbitrary  scheme  ;  but  it  is  a  matter  of  very  great  dif- 
ficulty, as  it  is  also  of  very  great  importance,  to  arrange 
S.  John's  doctrine  according  to  a  system  which  reflects 
the  peculiar  complexion  of  his  own  thought.  It  is 
chiefly  in  this  respect  that  this  essay  may  claim  to  be 
an  independent  contribution.  To  this  interest,  to  the 
aim  of  giving  a  total  impression  of  S.  John's  theology 
as  an  organic  unity,  every  thing  has  been  subordi- 
nated, and  something  perhaps  sacrificed  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  several  parts.  A  glance  at  the  table 
of  contents  will  show  with  how  much  care  the  con- 
struction of  S.  John's  doctrinal  system  has  been 
studied.  I  cannot  claim  that  this  scheme  is  estab- 
lished beyond  the  need  of  revision;  the  only  hope 
one  can  cherish  in  such  a  case  is  that  it  may  approve 
itself  to  be  a  more  or  less  close  approximation  to  the 
normal,  natural  development  of  S.  John's  doctrine. 
It  will  attest  its  own  correctness  just  in  so  far  as  it 
avails  to  illuminate  S.  John's  specific  doctrines,  and 
to  render  intelligible  their  correlation. 

I  had  hoped  that,  by  dwelling  upon  the  salient 
features  of  S.  John's  doctrine,  by  making  prominent 
the  unity  of  his  thought,  by  omitting  technical  details, 
literary  references,  and  any  thing  which  might  inter- 
fere with  the  smooth  continuity  of  the  exposition,  this 
book  might  be  made  available  for  a  far  larger  circle 
of  readers  than  is  accustomed  to  interest  itself  in 
theological  science.  That  purpose  I  have  had  in 
mind  throughout;    and    although,    in    reviewing  the 


PREFACE  ix 

work,  I  cannot  claim  that  I  have  altogether  succeeded, 
I  still  cannot  devise  any  way  to  make  it  easier  read- 
ing without  making  it  the  poorer.  The  subject  is 
in  itself  pecuharly  fit  to  enlist  a  popular  interest;  in 
importance  it  is  not  inferior  to  any  theme  which  can 
occupy  the  human  mind  ;  and  with  the  attention  which 
it  undeniably  deserves  it  will  be  found  at  least  as 
easy  of  comprehension  as  the  system  of  any  pagan 
philosopher. 

I  have  made  in  the  text  almost  no  references  to 
authorities,  but  I  cannot  forbear  mentioning  here  a 
few  books  which  have  proved  of  capital  importance 
for  this  study.  If  I  mention  first  the  well  known 
work  of  Bernard  Weiss,  "  Der  johanneische  Lehrbe- 
griff,"  it  is  less  as  an  expression  of  satisfaction  with  its 
treatment,  than  as  an  acknowledgment  of  the  fact 
that  it  has  had  a  leading  influence  in  the  study  of  the 
subject,  and  remains  to-day  the  only  book  —  with 
the  exception  of  the  recent  work  of  Professor  Stevens 
of  Yale  University  —  which  deals  exclusively  with  the 
Johannine  theology,  and  professes  to  give  a  complete 
representation  of  it.  There  are  other  works  to  which 
I  must  acknowledge  more  serious  obligation,  although 
they  are  but  indirect  or  partial  contributions  to  the 
study:  E.  Haupt,  **  Com.  on  the  ist  Epistle  of 
John,"  Eng.  trans.;  Franke,  *'Das  Alte  Testament 
bei  Johannes;"  Schlatter,  "Der  Glaube  im  Neuen 
Testament."  It  will  be  readily  recognised  that  a  work 
like  the  present  must  be  far  more  broadly  indebted 
than     this     scant     acknowledgment     would     reveal. 


X  PREFACE 

Biblical  theology  draws  its  material  from  so  many 
sources  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  remember, 
even  were  it  thought  worthwhile  to  note,  where  credit 
ought  to  be  bestowed.  But  no  fellow  augur  will  see 
in  the  smoothness  of  the  text  an  evidence  of  scant 
labour ;  nor,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  will  the  unlearned  see 
therein  an  undue  claim  to  originality. 

This  essay  was  not  designed  in  the  interest  of 
apology:  nothing  in  fact  could  be  further  from  the 
spirit  in  which  the  study  was  begun.  But  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  study  of  the  Johannine  writings  can- 
not be  pursued  w^ithout  eventually  facing  and  settling 
the  question  of  their  genuineness  and  authenticity. 
Biblical  theology  cannot  be  altogether  divorced  from 
such  problems,  and  they  are  consequently  discussed 
in  the  introduction,  though  only  so  far  as  is  necessary 
for  the  understanding  of  S.  John's  thought. 

I  trust  that  the  avowal  that  this  book  is  a  work  of 
imagination  will  not  raise  a  prejudice  against  it  as 
though  it  were  therefore  bereft  of  any  solid  foundation 
in  fact.  Nowhere  within  the  sphere  of  biblical  study 
is  the  faculty  of  imagination  so  indispensable  as  in 
this  work  of  literary  interpretation.  It  is  in  precisely 
the  same  sense,  and  without  the  least  prejudice  to 
reality,  that  imagination  is  a  requisite  of  all  higher 
scientific  work  ;  and  in  the  case  of  historical,  as  well  as 
in  that  of  physical  science,  the  only  applicable  test  of 
truth  is  this:  whether  the  imaginative  construction 
—  the  hypothesis — is  able  to  account  for  the  facts. 
One  might   set  to  work   to  interpret  the   Johannine 


PREFACE  XI 

writings  upon  the  hy[)otliesis  that  the  author  was  an 
Alexandrian  under  the  influence  of  Philo's  philos- 
ophy, or  an  antagonist  of  the  gnosticism  of  the 
second  century,  or  himself  a  gnostic,  or  a  Gentile 
Christian  of  the  second  generation  under  the  influence 
of  S.  Paul.  Some  constructive  hypothesis  one  must 
have,  all  of  these  have  been  maintained,  and  I  treasure 
the  hope  that  the  working  hypothesis  of  the  present 
essay :  namely,  that  the  author  was  a  Galilean,  a  com- 
panion of  the  Lord,  and  no  other  than  the  Apostle  John 
who  according  to  unimpeachable  tradition  survived  all 
other  apostles  and  proclaimed  the  message  in  an  age 
when  he  alone  could  say  "  I  saw  ;  "  — ■  that  this 
hypothesis  may  prove  itself  adequate  as  no  other  can 
to  the  test  of  illuminating  the  characteristics  of  the 
Johannine  writings,  and  in  so  far  dispose  of  the  pre- 
judice against  their  authenticity,  which,  despite  the 
remarkable  accessions  of  external  evidence  and  the 
significant  admissions  on  the  score  of  internal  criticism, 
intrenches  itself  in  the  assertion  that  the  doctrinal 
system  of  the  Johannine  writings  is  such  as  could  not 
have  been  formulated  by  the  Galilean  companion  of 
Jesus  —  a  proposition  which  in  the  last  resort  is 
founded  upon  the  conviction  that  one  who  had 
personally  known  Jesus  as  a  man  could  not  believe 
Him  to  be   God. 

WALTER    LOWRIE. 
Philadelphia,  June,  1S99. 


CONTENTS 


CONTENTS  XV 


INTRODUCTION 

BIBLICAL   THEOLOGY    IN   GENERAL 3-9 

Common  recognition  of  the  importance  of  Biblical  Theology. 

Vagueness  of  the  prevalent  conceptions  of  it. 

Definition  of  Biblical  Theology. 

It  is  not  a  rectification  of  Systematic  Theology ; 

nor  a  study  of  detached  ideas  ; 

nor  a  mere  topical  arrangement  of  the  results  of  exegesis. 

It  is  the  exposition  of  the  author's  thought  as  a  whole  Z.Q.- 
cording  to  the  relation  of  emphasis,  of  co-ordination 
and  sub-ordination,  which  the  different  terms  had  for 
him. 

It  is  an  historical  study;  —  an  interpretation  of  the  author  in 
terms  of  his  ov/n  philosophic  method;  not  a  translation 
into  equivalent  modes  of  modern  thought. 

Method  of  study. 

Sources:  the  genuine  writings,  —  and  documents  which  re- 
veal phases  of  contemporary  thought  with  which  the 
author  was  in  touch. 

Helps:  commentaries,  and  special  studies  of  the  character- 
istics and  the  doctriixal  ideas  of  the  New  Testament. 

Comparative  construction:  the  characteristic  labour  of  Bib- 
lical Theology. 

Method  of  exposition. 


XVi  CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION  —  contimied 

SPECIAL   PROBLEMS    INVOLVED    IN   TIIK    STUDY 

OF   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   S.   JOHN 10-17 

Problems  peculiar  to  the  study  of  each  author. 

Depending   upon   the  extent   and  character  of  the  literary 

sources ; 
and  upon  the  date  and  possible  affinities  of  the  author. 

Various  claims  in  respect  to  the  date  and  affinities  of  tlie  Johan- 
nine  writings  must  be  examined. 

Peculiar  character  of  the  Johannine  sources  and  their  value  for 
Biblical  Theology. 

Genuineness  of   the   Gospel   and   the   Epistles,  —  and   the 
Revelation. 

A   normal  expression  of  the  author's  thought  without  con- 
troversial bias. 

Valuation  of  the  Gospel  as  a  source  of  Johannine  theology : 
the   speeches    of    Jesus, — assimilation    of    Jesus' 

teaching  in  S.  John's  own  thought, 
character  and  arrangement  of  the  composition  an 
index  of  the  author's  point  of  view. 


CONTENTS  XVI I 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   S.   JOHN 

GENERAL     CHARACTERISTICS     OF     S.     JOHN'S 

THOUGHT 21-46 

The  leading  peculiarities  o£  the  Johannine  writings  are  an  index 
to  the  fundamental  characteristics  of  the  author's  thought. 

The  comparison  with  the  Synoptic  Gospels  reveals  the  distinct 
aim  of  S.  John's  work. 
The  author's  acquaintance  with  the  Synoptists. 

Correction,  explanation,  and  supplement  of  the  tradition 
can  be  regarded  as  aims  only  in  a  very  subsidiary  degree. 

The  distinguishing  mark  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  the  char- 
acter of  its  representation  of  the  significance  of  the  Per- 
son of  Christ. 

The  pre-eminent  aim  of  the  author  is  seen  to  be  a  teaching 
which  relative  to  Christ's  Person  was  higher;  —  not  than 
the  belief  current  in  the  Church,  but  than  the  repre- 
sentation of  any  previous  account  of  the  Lord's  life. 

This  fundamental  difference  between  the  Synoptists  and  the 
Fourth  Gospel  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  latter 
alone  was  written  by  a  companion  of  the  Lord, 

The  combination  of  a  preponderating  representation  of  the 
subjective   significance    of  Christ's   manifestation   with 
the  most  emphatic  contention  for  its  objective  reality, 
-   is  explained  by  the  historical  position  of  the  author. 

The  intuitional  character  of  S.  John's  thought,  in  contrast 
to  a  speculative  or  dialectical  method. 

The  constant  and  close  attachment  of  S.  John's  thought  to 
the  Person  of  Christ  as  the  revelation  of  the  Father. 

The  Aramaic  traits  of  S.  John's  language  furnish  a  hint  of 
the  Hebraic  affinities  of  his  thought. 

Construction  of  the  Johannine  theology. 


xviii  CONTENTS 


SCHEME    OF   ARRANGEMENT   OF    S.   JOHN'S 
DOCTRINE 

I.   GOD 49-72 

GOD   IS   LIGHT 49-57 

God  the  centre  of  theology. 
The  meaning  of  "  Light." 


THE   TRUE   GOD 57-63 


THE   FATHER 63-72 

(The  personality  of  God.) 
(God  the  Creator.) 

Fatherhood  in  a  real  sense.  —  d  yevvficras. 
The  only  begotten  Son. 
The  children  of  God. 
God  the  source  of  life. 

Fatherhood  in  an  ethical  sense. 
The  Father  and  the  Nation. 
The  Father  and  the  Son. 
The  Father  and  the  children. 
God  is  love. 


CONTENTS  xix 


SCHEME   OF   ARRANGEMENT   OF   S.   JOHN'S 
DOCTRINE  —  continued 

II.   THE  LOGOS  WITH  GOD 73-94 

JESUS'   SELF-WITNESS 73-82 

The  only  begotten  Son. 
Divinity  of  the  Son. 
Pre-existence  of  the  Son. 

S.  JOHN'S   DOCTRINE   OF  THE   LOGOS     82-94 

S.  John's  own  estimate  of  Christ. 

S.  John's  use  of  the  term  Logos. 

The  motive  of  S.  John's  choice  of  the  term. 

Content  of  S.  John's  doctrine  of  the  Logos. 


m.    THE  KOSMOS  LYING  IN  DARKNESS      .    .    95-112 

THE  WORLD  AS  THE  SPHERE  OF  HUMAN 

LIFE 95-98 

S.  John's  slight  interest  in  the  material  aspects  of  the  world. 

Heaven  and  earth. 

The  material  chaos  is  the  analogy  of  the  ethical  darkness. 

THE    DARKNESS 98-112 

The  revelation  of  the  old  covenant. 
The  Jews  in  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
Sin. 


XX  CONTENTS 


IV.    THE  LIFE  MANIFESTED 1 13-216 

THE  PARALLEL  WITH  THE   FIRST   CHAP- 
TERS  OF   GENESIS 113-118 

THE   WORD   BECOME   FLESH  ....     1 18-127 

The  nature  of  the  Incarnation. 

The  Son  of  man. 

The  Messiah. 

The  Incarnation  a  manifestation  of  God's  glory. 

A.  SALVATION  OUT  OF  THE  WORLD      128-155 

1.  The  whole  world  as  the  object  of  salvation. 

2.  The  division  amongst  men. 

3.  The  doom  of  the  world. 

4.  The  election   of  the  children   of  God  out  of 

the  world. 
God's  election. 
The  covenant  people. 
The  sacrifice  and  lustration  of  the  Covenant. 

B.  REALISATION  OF  THE  POSITIVE  CON- 

CEPT OF  SALVATION  THROUGH  THE 
REVELATION  OF  THE  TRUTH,  (or  THE 
APPROPRIATION  OF  LIFE).     .     .     156-216 

The  New  Birth. —  The  Light  of  Life     162-186 
Christ  the  Truth. 
The  Spirit  of  truth. 
Believing  and  knowing. 

Eternal  Life 186-194 

The  Children  of  God.  — Fellowship      194-216 

Theology  and  ethics. 

Likeness  to  God. 

"^rhe  new  commandment. 

Confidence. 

Prayer. 


INTRODUCTION 


INTRODUCTION 

BIBLICAL    THEOLOGY   IN    GENERAL 

ONE  is  under  no  necessity  to-day  of  offering  an 
apology  for  Biblical  Theology.  Divers  trends 
of  thought  have  combined  to  give  it  an  importance 
General  Recog-  ^^^  ^^  interest  which  is  sure  to  come  to 
nition  of  Bibii-  popular  recognition.  The  prevalent  re- 
c  eo  ogy  vulsion  from  metaphysical  dogmatism  has 
encouraged  in  Christian  thought  a  return  to  authority, 
in  one  or  another  form  ;  —  and  by  no  means  least  to 
the  Apostolic  norm  in  the  New  Testament  Canon. 
Authority  may  seem  a  strange  term  to  use  in  con- 
nection with  the  distinctively  modern  appreciation  of 
the  New  Testament  Scripture,  but  it  actually  is  as  an 
authority  that  it  is  regarded,  if  only  in  the  historical 
sense,  as  the  unique  record  of  the  faith  of  the  first 
generation  of  Christians.  The  distinction  of  modern 
Biblical  study  from  this  point  of  view  has  been  that 
instead  of  seeking  corroboration  in  the  Biblical  text 
for  the  separate  propositions  of  the  current  church 
theology,  it  has  been  peculiarly  open  to  the  influence 
of  the  modern  historical  method,  and  ready  to  recog- 
nise that  our  sacred  books  are  as  well  worthy  as  any 
others  of  the  rigid  scrutiny  with  which  we  have  learned 
to  interpret  all  historical  texts. 


4  IN  TROD  UC  TION 

The  diversity  however  of  the  influences  which  have 
encouraged  the  study  of  this  subject  has  contributed 
Vagueness  of  ^^  render  vague  and  various  the  concep- 
Conception  tions  of  its  scope  and  aim.  Of  defini- 
tions there  is  a  lack ;  but  from  the  character  of  the 
numerous  books  which  have  been  issued  under  this 
name,  one  may  infer  that  prevalent  notions  of  Bib- 
Heal  Theology  are  loose  enough  to  include  at  the 
one  end  a  systematic  theology  which  is  marked  by 
copious  employment  of  Biblical  texts,  and  at  the 
other,  a  mere  exegetical  study  of  separate  words  and 
ideas. 

No  doubt  in  the  study  of  any  subject,  and  particu- 
larly in  the  inception  of  a  study,  there  must  be  differ- 
Definitionof  ^nces  of  treatment  corresponding  to  the 
BibUcai  The-  various  degrees  of  completeness  —  rather 
oiogy  incompleteness  —  at  which  the  study  has 

arrived.  At  this  date  we  must  be  thankful  for  many 
studies  which  are  partial  and  subsidiary.  It  is,  how- 
ever, a  just  ground  of  complaint  that  many  works 
which  go  under  the  name  of  Biblical  Theology  have 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  it,  and  implicitly  belie  its 
ideal.  The  ideal  of  Biblical  Theology  is  nevertheless 
capable  of  being  defined  with  perfect  precision  and 
in  a  way  which  can  hardly  be  subject  to  difference  of 
opinion. 

It  is  not  a  rectification  of  systematic  theology ;   for 

systematic   theology   revised    is   systematic   theology 

still,    and   neither   clashes  with   nor  coin- 
Whatitisnct        .  ,  .  ,      ,  ,  .  ,.  ,.      . 

cides  with  the  new  and  mtermediate  disci- 

phne  in  question.     Neither  is   it  a  study  of  Biblical 

words    and    ideas    in   severalty;   nor    a  mere    topical 

arrangement  of  the  results  of  such  studies. 


BIBLICAL    THEOLOGY  LN  GENERAL  5 

It  stands  midway  between  exegesis  and  systematic 
theology.  It  clings  very  closely  to  the  form  of  Bibli- 
it  is  Exposition  ^^^  conceptions  and  at  the  same  time 
in  Terms  of  a  strives  to  comprehend  them  in  terms  of  a 
System  system.     Its  special  mark  is  this,  that  it 

studies  separately  the  several  Biblical  documents  in 
relation  to  the  individual  authors,  with  the  aim  of  re- 
producing the  theological  standpoint  of  each  writer. 
The  only  postulate  we  have  to  demand  is  one  which 
cannot  readily  be  refused :  it  is,  that  no  two  men 
think  precisely  alike  ;  but  under  the  same  terms  they 
understand  different  things,  and  under  different  terms, 
the  same  thing; — that  the  common  Apostolic  doc- 
trine was  by  the  individual  authors  at  least  distributed 
in  different  ways,  expressed  under  various  terms,  and 
with  different  emphasis.  This,  however,  in  no  wise 
prejudices  the  fact  that  there  is  a  substantial  unity  of 
doctrine  throughout  the  New  Testament;  and  it  is 
by  the  method  of  Biblical  Theology  alone  that  such 
a  fact  can  be  established.  An  idea  can  be  compre- 
hended only  as  a  part  of  a  system,  the  study  of  an 
author's  thought  as  a  whole  throws  back  a  flood  of 
light  upon  the  several  items  of  exegetical  inquiry,  and 
it  is  in  this  that  Biblical  Theology  attains  its  charac- 
teristic expression. 

In  characterising  Biblical  Theology  as  an  historical 
study  we  define  it  on  two  sides.  In  the  first  place,  it 
An  Historical  is  not  directly  interested  in  the  bearing 
study  of  the  Biblical  truths  upon  the  religious 

life ;  it  is  history,  not  homily.  The  truth  or  false- 
hood, the  moral  value,  of  Biblical  doctrine  cannot 
for  one  moment  be  a  matter  of  indifference ;  but  in 
this  study  we  are    concerned    simply  to  learn  what 


6  INTR  OD  UC  TION 

was  the  meaning  of  the  author.  In  the  second  place, 
it  does  not  seek  to  go  beyond  the  historical  stand- 
point of  the  author,  to  extract  universally  valid  pro- 
positions, to  extend  by  inference  —  no  matter  with 
how  faultless  a  logic  —  the  sphere  of  his  ideas,  nor  to 
subject  his  conceptions  to  the  unity  of  an  alien 
system.  It  does  not  aim  to  go  one  jot  beyond  the 
circle  of  ideas  native  to  the  consciousness  of  the 
writer ;  it  does  not  seek  to  translate  the  author  into 
equivalent  modes  of  modern  thought ;  but  to  inter- 
pret him  in  terms  of  his  own  philosophic  method. 

The  sources  with  which  BibHcal  Theology  has  to 
deal  in  constructing  the  theological   doctrine  of  the 

various  BibHcal  authors  are  of  course 
Method  of  study       .         .,        ,  .       , 

primarily  the  genuine  writings  (and  re- 
ported speeches)  of  the  author.  But  inasmuch  as 
these  sources  are  in  the  form  of  history  or  epistle,  in 
which  the  theological  material  is  occasional,  and  for 

the  most  part  subordinate  to  a  hortatory 

aim,  they  are  not  available  for  our  pur- 
pose so  simply  and  directly  as  were  they  syste- 
matic theological  treatises ;  and  the  theological  data 
which  they  furnish  are  rarely  abundant  enough  to 
define  the  author's  position  on  all  sides.  For  our 
construction  we  are  therefore  dependent  in  no  incon- 
siderable degree  upon  such  sources  of  information 
as  reveal  the  phases  of  contemporary  thought  with 
which  the  author  was  in  touch.  Chief  among  these 
are  of  course  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  with  their  con- 
temporary Judaic  interpretation,  as  being  in  fact  the 
chief  ground  of  the  unity  which  underlies  the  diversity 
of  New  Testament  doctrinal  forms.  One  can  hardly 
overestimate  the  importance  of  the   Old   Testament 


BIBLICAL    THEOLOGY  IN  GENERAL  y 

as  the  matrix  of  Christian  doctrine ;  and  any  study 
which  fails  to  give  due  weight  to  this  consideration  is 
sure  to  be  astray.  Hardly  second  in  importance  are 
the  New  Testament  Scriptures  as  a  whole.  Whatever 
of  individuality  we  may  find  in  an  author,  we  are  at 
least  equally  bound  to  recognise  the  common  factor 
of  Apostolic  doctrine.  Each  man  wrote  in  the  Church 
and  for  the  Church,  assuming  a  comprehension  and  a 
reception  of  his  teaching  on  the  basis  of  the  common 
faith.  It  is  a  question  for  Biblical  Theology  to  settle 
rather  than  to  assume,  whether  besides  the  individ- 
ualities of  the  several  authors  there  are  to  be  discov- 
ered distinct  schools  of  thought  within  the  Apostolic 
period.  But  it  is  certain  at  least  that  the  strongly 
marked  individuality  of  S.  Paul  was  not  without 
influence  upon  his  associates ;  and  we  must  expect  to 
find  differences  in  the  forms  of  conception  of  the 
several  authors  corresponding  to  their  dependence 
upon  Hebraic  or  Hellenic  modes  of  thought.  How 
far  Hellenic  philosophy,  or  the  speculations  of  Hellen- 
istic Judaism,  may  throw  light  upon  New  Testament 
doctrinal  systems,  is  an  open  question.  The  attempt, 
however,  in  any  large  sense  to  derive  New  Testament 
doctrine  from  Greek  philosophy  is  egregiously  un- 
historical ;  —  if  for  no  other  reason,  because  of  the 
difference  of  the  problems  in  which  they  were  inter- 
ested. That  the  Greek  stress  was  upon  metaphysics 
and  the  Christian  upon  religion  is  a  fact  patent:  but 
the  further  difference  is  to  be  noted  that  even  the 
Greek  rehgion  was  expressed  in  terms  of  ethics,  while 
the  Christian  ethics  was  expressed  in  terms  of  theology. 
But  the  language  of  the  New  Testament  is  Greek,  and 
this  fact  of  itself,  besides  requiring  extended  lexical 


8  INTRODUCTION 

study  in  Greek  sources,  raises  the  question  how  far 
the  Greek  language,  which  was  the  product  as  well  as 
the  instrument  of  Greek  philosophy,  may  have  in- 
fluenced the  formal  development  of  New  Testament 
thought.  It  is  moreover  important  to  recognise  that 
our  New  Testament  Scriptures  were  formulated  in  an 
age  in  which  Greek  culture  was  disseminated  through- 
out the  world,  which  therefore  was  distinguished,  in  a 
degree  to  which  no  subsequent  age  has  attained,  by 
clear  thought  and  right  reason. 

Biblical  Theology,  although  in  many  respects  it 
proceeds  upon  a  new  principle  of  interpretation,  is 
not  under  the  necessity  of  beginning  the 
^^  study   of  the    Bible   de  novo.     The  rich 

heritage  of  the  faithful  study  of  past  ages  is  the  basis 
upon  which  alone  our  present  development  is  possible, 
and  its  fruits  are  directly  available  for  our  purpose. 
The  great  exegetical  commentaries  are  the  chief 
reliance  of  Biblical  Theology;  the  few  which  have 
been  written  with  this  aim  specially  in  view  have  of 
course  a  more  immediate  value.  The  acute  histori- 
cal studies  of  this  century  in  the  developments  of  the 
Apostolic  age  have  a  still  more  lively  bearing  upon 
our  subject.  And  as  the  most  immediate  helps  we 
must  count  the  numerous  special  studies  in  New 
Testament  doctrine,  most  of  which  are  more  or  less 
in  line  with  our  conception,  taking  account  of  the 
diversity  of  doctrinal  types. 

But  the  characteristic  labour  of  Biblical  Theology 

begins  where  the  helps  cease.     Biblical  Theology  is 

essentially    constructive ;    it    rises    from 

the  close   inspection   of  single  texts  to 

an  apprehension  of  the  author's  thought  as  a  whole. 


BIBLICAL    THEOLOGY  IN  GENERAL  9 

Minute  and  patient  exegetical  study  is  indispensable ; 
but  no  less  necessary  and  more  characteristic  of  this 
study  is  the  broader  view,  the  imaginative  faculty 
checked  by  the  historic  sense,  by  the  aid  of  which 
the  scattered  details  are  co-ordinated  in  a  constructive 
reproduction  of  the  author's  thought.  Both  of  these 
labours  constantly  interact;  there  is  a  perpetual 
back  and  forth,  a  comparison  of  text  with  text,  of 
hypothesis  with  proof,  of  the  particular  with  the 
general ;  and  out  of  this  labour  grows  Biblical  Theol- 
ogy, with  its  representation  which  is  at  least  an 
approximation  to  the  lively  unity  of  the  author's 
thought. 

It  is  manifestly  impracticable  to  carry  the  reader 
through  this  elaborate  study.  Following  the  well 
known  maxim  that  the  order  of  instruction  is  the 
opposite  of  the  order  of  investigation,  the  signs 
of  labour  must  in  the  main  be  expunged  from  the 
Method  of  Ex-  face  of  the  treatment ;  —  the  results  onl)' 
position  appear,    and    they    are    in    a    sense    the 

proof  of  their  own  validity,  in  so  far  as  they  dem.on- 
strate  themselves  adequate  to  explain  and  to  har- 
monise the  author's  characteristic  ideas.  The  process 
of  study  may  be  allowed  to  appear  only  so  far  as 
may  be  necessary,  to  the  understanding  of  the 
point  of  view.  Intelligibility  must  be  the  key-note 
of  exposition. 


SPECIAL   PROBLEMS    INVOLVED    IN   THE   STUDY 
OF    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    S.    JOHN 

The  study  of  each  author  meets  us  with  special 
problems  of  its  own,  depending  upon  the  extent  and 
Problems  pccu-  character  of  the  literary  sources,  upon 
Uartoeach  their  date,  and  upon  the  possible  affin- 

ities of  the  writer.  It  is  manifestly  a 
more  difficult  matter  to  determine  the  theological 
position  of  such  men  as  S.  Peter,  or  S.  James,  or  S. 
Luke;  than  that,  for  instance,  of  S.  Paul,  in  whom 
the  logical  faculty  came  to  clearer  expression,  and 
whose  writings,  not  only  by  reason  of  their  greater 
compass,  but  by  the  very  fact  of  their  predominant 
controversial  character,  giv^e  a  sharper  definition  to 
his  theology. 
w  There  are  certain  widely  accepted  claims  in  re- 
spect to  the  date  and  the  philosophical  affinities  of 
the  Johannine  writings  which  must  be  carefully 
weighed  in  the  course  of  study,  but  which,  in  so  far 
Date  and  Affin-  as  they  are  not  adopted,  cannot  without 
ities  of  s.  John  prejudice  to  clearness  and  unity  come  to 
expression  in  the  finished  exposition.  Nevertheless 
we  shall  see  in  the  course  of  the  treatment  that  the 
marked  predilection  which  has  been  shown  for  S. 
John  by  the  Mystics  and  kindred  thinkers  is  due  in 
part  to  a  misinterpretation  of  his  thought.  The  con- 
tention that  he  manifests  a  type  of  thought  akin  to 
the  Platonic  realism  —  whether  independent  or  de- 
rived—  can    only  be    misleading.     There    is    a    trait 


SPECIAL   PROBLEMS  II 

which  we  may  denominate  the  Johannine  ideahsm  ;  but 
it  is  of  a  Hebrew,  not  of  a  Greek  mould.  The  claim 
that  the  Epistle  of  S.  John,  or  the  Gospel,  or  both, 
exhibit  the  influence  of  the  Gnosticism  of  the  second 
century  has  been  discredited  by  the  fanciful  pro- 
cedure of  its  adherents ;  and  we  shall  see  that  the 
so-called  dualism  which  is  so  prominent  a  trait  of 
the  Johannine  writings  is  of  a  very  different  character 
and  suggests  a  widely  different  explanation.  Not  so 
readily  can  we  dispose  of  the  claim  that  the  Johannine 
writings  show  substantial  dependence  upon  the  thought 
of  Hellenic  Judaism ;  of  the  apparent  Antijudaism  of 
the  Gospel ;  or  of  the  Tubingen  hypothesis  which, 
ever  seeking  a  '*  tendency,"  linds  in  S.  John's  Gospel 
the  purpose  of  expressing  the  life  of  Christ  in 
harmony  with  the  regnant  gentile  Catholicism  of  the 
second  century.  These  questions  must  come  to 
consideration  in  the  course  of  the  essay;  and  in 
particular,  the  problem  of  the  relation  of  S.  John  to 
Philo  will  be  treated  in  connection  with  the  Logos 
idea,  where  it  will  be  seen  how  slight  is  the  clew 
which  has  led  into  this  path.  It  cannot  fairly  be 
considered  a  proof  of  prejudice  that  one  abides  by 
the  traditional  account  of  the  authorship  and  date  of 
the  Johannine  writings.  At  all  events  the  traditional 
hypothesis  like  every  other  must  be  judged  by  its 
fitness  to  explain  the  phenomena  of  the  writings  in 
question,  —  and  of  all  the  writings. 

When  we  consider  the  Johannine  sources  (the  Gos- 
pel, the  three  Epistles,  and  the  Revelation)  with 
Character  and  reference  to  their  value  for  Biblical  The- 
y^ueoiihe  ology,  the  first  question  is  not  whether 
Sources  they  are  genuine,  but  whether  they  may 


1 2  IN  TROD  UCTIOiX 

be    ascribed  to  a  common  author.     The  question  of 

genuineness  is  one  which  is  rather  to  be  proved  than 

^     ,  posited    by   BibHcal   Theoloo^y.      For    it 

Genuineness         ^  -^    .  , 

must   be   evident  that  these    documents, 

be  they  written  when  or  by  whom  they  may, 
furnish  data  for  the  determination  of  the  writer's 
thought,  and  that  on  this  interpretation  depends  in 
part  the  decision  of  the  authorship.  Biblical  The- 
ology would  lose  its  apologetic  value  were  it  to 
assume  what  it  is  in  a  position  to  prove.  Neverthe- 
less the  claim  of  perfect  impartiality  upon  such  a  point 
as  this  is  a  vain  boast.  The  Johannine  authorship 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  the  most  vital  question  of 
New  Testament  criticism ;  here  if  anywhere  is  the 
line  which  divides  a  rationalising  interpretation  of 
Christianity  from  one  which  can  in  any  sense  be 
called  orthodox.  With  this  question  we  decide 
whether  among  those  who  heard,  who  saw  with  their 
eyes,  who  beheld,  and  handled  with  their  hands,  we 
have  any  witness  that  the  person  of  Jesus  impressed 
in  such  wise  his  familiar  companions  that  they  recog- 
nised him  as  God :  —  not  in  the  easy  fashion  of  a 
polytheism  which  deified  every  emperor,  but  in  the 
sense  of  the  exalted  Hebrew  monotheism  in  which 

j  they  were  bred.  It  is  marvellous  to  note  how  certain 
schools  of  thought,  without  even  raising  the  question 
of  Johannine  authorship,  reconstruct  their  Chris- 
tianity upon  a  basis  which  is  valid  only  in  the  case 
of  its  negation.  But  however  the  issue  may  be 
obscured,  it  is  this  question  which  must  decide  in  the 
last  resort  how  we  are  to  regard  the  central  fact  of 

j  Christianity.  For  if  S.  John  wrote,  it  is  not  possible 
to  say  that   the  genius   of  S.  Paul   foisted  upon  the 


SPECIAL   PROBLEMS  1 3 

church  a  conception  of  Christ  which  was  strange 
to  the  original  Apostles.  If  S.  John  testified  to  be- 
holding in  the  humble  manifestation  of  Jesus  "  a 
Glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father  "  ;  then  is 
there  a  flaw  in  the  numerous  '*  lives  of  Jesus  "  which, 
on  the  basis  of  a  critical  selection  out  of  the  synoptic 
accounts,  represent  his  earthly  manifestation  as  ''  emp- 
tied "  of  all  traits  of  divinity  which  might  inspire  the 
thought  that  he  was  more  than  man.  About  the 
decision  of  such  a  question  hosts  of  presuppositions 
gather,  and  not  the  least  is  the  presumption  that  one 
who  had  known  Jesus  as  a  man  could  not  believe 
him  to  be  God.  If  in  a  question  of  so  great  moment 
Biblical  Theology  may  not  furnish  the  decisive  settle- 
ment, it  can  at  least  declare  the  bearing  of  the  inter- 
nal evidence  pro  or  con.  And  this  essay,  so  far  as  its 
apologetic  bearing  is  concerned,  has  at  the  very  least 
a  value  in  rebuttal,  and  sets  a  nihil  obstat  upon  the 
claim  of  Apostolic  authorship.  The  hypothesis  that 
the  author  was  the  Galilean  disciple  of  Jesus,  the 
"  pillar "  of  the  Jerusalem  church,  the  venerable 
"presbyter"  of  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor,  is  not 
however  to  be  judged  merely  upon  its  own  merits, 
but  in  connection  with  a  criticism  of  the  opposing 
hypotheses  which  reveals  their  relative  unfitness. 

The  acknowledgment  of  the  common  authorship 
of  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistles  (or  rather  the  patent 
fact  which  renders  denial  trivial)  contributes  much  to 
the  simplicity  of  our  task.  This  already  provides  us 
with  material  which  in  compass  is  greater  than  the 
writings  of  any  other  of  the  New  Testament  authors 
except  those  of  S.  Matthew,  S.  Luke  and  S.  Paul ; 
and   is   exceeded  by  S.  Paul  alone  in  the  abundance 


14  INTRODUCTION 

of  its  information  upon  the  writer's  theological  stand- 
point. It  is  this  sufficiency  of  unquestionable  mate- 
rial which  renders  the  question  of  the  genuineness  of 
the  Apocalypse  one  of  secondary — at  least  not  vital 

—  importance  to  Biblical  Theology.  The  authorship 
of  the  Apocalypse  is  so  widely  disputed,  and  the 
question  is  altogether  one  of  so  great  difficulty,  that 
it  would  seriously  impair  the  value  of  the  study  of 
S.  John's  theology  to  assume  its  genuineness.  It  is 
generally  admitted  that  the  Apocalypse  differs  so 
widely  in  style  and  in  religious  outlook  from  the 
other  Johannine  writings  as  to  make  it  exceedingly 
difficult  to  conceive  how  they  could  have  been  pro- 
duced by  a  common  author.  On  the  other  hand  the 
points  of  resemblance  are  so  marked  that  even  those 
whcy^ny  the  genuineness  of  both  are  compelled  to 
deriWthem  from  a  common  school  of  thought.  It  is 
not  difficult  to  imagine  that,  with  the  difference  in 
date  which  we  may  readily  assume,  and  with  some 
new  light  upon  the  genesis,  aim,  and  meaning  of  the 
Apocalypse,  the  contrarieties  which  now  arrest  our 
judgment  maybe  dissipated.  Biblical  Theology  may 
conduce  to  this  result  by  proving  a  fundamental 
agreement  in  theological  conception :  but  it  can  do 
this  only  by  maintaining  its  independence  and  by 
studying  each  document  for  itself. 

When  we   compare   the   Johannine   writings   with 
those   of  S.  Paul,  we  notice  that  whereas  the  latter, 

-  ,  ^  .  ,«  .     by  reason  of  their  predominantly  contro- 

S.  John's  Writ-      ^  ^  ^  , 

ings  a  Normal  versial  character  define  more  precisely 
Expression  ^|^^  author's  position;  the  writings  of 
S.  John,  by  the  fact  that  they  are  developed  without 
controvers}',  with   a    normal,    natural    emphasis    and 


SPECIAL   PROBLEMS  1 5 

direction,  have  a  value  for  the  purposes  of  Bibhcal 
Theology  which  is  hardly  if  at  all  inferior.  This 
characteristic  of  S.  John's  writings  is  certainly  not 
due  to  any  lack  of  appreciation  of  the  errors  which 
threatened  the  Church,  or  of  readiness  to  oppose 
them  (witness  the  first  part  of  the  Revelation  and 
the  practical  admonitions  of  the  Epistle)  ;  but  prob- 
ably to  the  fact  that  S.  John  was  not  equipped  for 
controversy;  — denunciation,  "fire  from  heaven,"  was 
his  role.  He  knew  but  one  way  to  oppose  error,  \ 
and  that  was  to  state  the  truth  —  fully,  with  all  the  j 
majesty  that  it  assumed  in  his  own  contemplation  — 
and  let  it  work.  Behind  the  Johannine  writings  we 
seem  to  feel  as  it  were  the  presence  of  a  world  power 
which  is  able  to  oppress  the  Church,  not  only  by 
physical  violence,  but  by  spiritual  delusion :  but  all 
the  attempts  that  have  been  made  to  represent  the 
Johannine  writings  as  expressly  formulated  to  con- 
trovert one  or  another  form  of  error,  are  wrecked 
upon  the  fact  that  the  author's  expressions  have 
nowhere  the  precision  of  reference  which  we  must 
expect  in  such  a  case,  and  most  of  all  from  a  man 
of  so  downright  and  ardent  a  disposition  as  he  mani- 
fests. The  importance  of  this  peculiarity  for  the 
purpose  of  our  study  cannot  be  overestimated ;  it 
assures  us  that  we  have  no  casual  or  imperfect  repre- 
sentation, no  colouring  nor  warping  of  the  exposition 
under  the  influence  of  a  transitory  interest;  but  an 
expression  of  S.  John's  native  and  inmost  thought 
developed  with  perfect  spontaneity  from  the  depths 
of  his  intuitional  and  emotional  nature. 

There   is   however  another  feature   of  the  Johan- 
nine writings  which  appears  at   first   sight  to  be  an 


1 6  INTRODUCTION 

effectual  stumbling-block  in  the  way  of  our  study 
of  S.  John's  doctrine.  The  Gospel  which  Is  by  far 
The  Gospel  as  a  ^^^  most  abundant  source  is  in  the  form 
Source  of  s.  of  a  history,  and  purports  to  give,  not 
John's  Theology        .         .,        ctt,'       j^.-  u^^t. 

primarily    S.    John  s    doctrine,    but    the 

teaching  of  Jesus.  If  therefore  we  are  to  maintain  in 
any  sense  the  authenticity  of  the  reported  speeches 
of  Jesus,  it  seems  as  though  we  must  be  restricted, 
for  the  special  purpose  of  our  study,  to  the  mere 
comments  of  the  author,  which  constitute  a  relatively 
insignificant  part  of  his  work.  This,  however,  is  a 
problem  which  is  by  no  means  so  difficult  of  solution, 
nor  so  open  to  controversy,  as  might  be  imagined. 
The  question  of  the  historicity  of  the  speeches  of 
Jesus  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  vital  as  it  is  for  the 
religious  interest,  is  not  one  of  immediate  concern 
to  Bibhcal  Theology:  we  are  here  exclusively  con- 
cerned with  the  doctrines  of  the  writer.  But  without 
the  least  prejudice  to  the  substantial  authenticity  of 
these  reports,  it  takes  but  slight  attention  to  the 
subject,  but  slight  familiarity  with  the  contrast  be- 
tween the  Synoptic  Gospels  and  S.  John's,  to  con- 
vince one  that  they  are  not  verbatim  reports,  that  in 
form  at  least  they  reflect  the  peculiarities  of  S.  John, 
who  puts,  not  only  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus,  but  of  the 
Baptist  and  of  the  Jews,  the  same  characteristic  lan- 
guage which  we  find  him  employing  in  his  Epistle ; 
—  to  realise  in  short  that  the  speeches  of  Jesus  con- 
tain only  what  S.  John  had  completely  assimilated 
and  made  his  own,  and  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  is,  as 
we  call  it,  the  Gospel  according  to  S.  JoJm. 

Thus  the  Gospel  is  vindicated  as  a  source  of  prime 
importance  for  the  study  of  the  Johannine  theology. 


SPECIAL   PROBLEMS 


17 


The  very  character  and  arrangement  of  the  compo- 
sition, the  aim  and  the  scope  of  it,  also  furnish  data 
of  the  very  highc-st  vahie  for  the  determination  of  the 
author's  theological  standpoint.  Here  we  are  al- 
ready entering  upon  the  theme  of  the  next  chapter, 
in  which  we  pass  from  these  preliminaries  to  the 
exposition  proper. 


GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS    OF 
S.   JOHN'S    THOUGHT 


GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS    OF    S.    JOHN'S 
THOUGHT 

We  are  able  even  from  a  general  survey  to  make 

some  highly  important  deductions  in  regard  to  the 

The  Outstanding  characteristic  theological  standpoint  of 
Features  of  the      i  , 

Writings  Reveal  the   author. 

S'Ja^ttriTcl^  ^"^  ^^  ^^^  "^^^t  important  problems, 
of  the  Author  one  which  serves  more  than  any  other 
to  fix  the  place  of  the  author  and  the  prevailing 
Aim  of  the  emphasis  of  his  thought,  is  that  in  re- 
Gospei  ga.rd  to  the  aim  of  his  Gospel. 

The  proposition  that  the  author  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel  was  acquainted  with  our  Synoptists,  though  it 
Acquaintance  *^  ^^^  which  —  to  use  an  expression  of 
with  the  Jeremy  Taylor's  —  has  '*  more  truth  than 

evidence  on  its  side,"  is  nevertheless  so 
generally  accepted  that,  without  going  aside  from 
our  purpose  to  argue  it  out,  we  must  estimate  its 
significance  for  our  conception  of  S.  John's  Gospel. 
Proceeding  from  this  consideration,  men  often  draw 
certain  very  serious  and  by  no  means  harmonious 
deductions  with  regard  to  the  aim  of  S.  John's  work. 
Now  the  first  thing  which  strikes  one  in  the  compar- 
ison of  S.  John's  Gospel  with  the  Synoptists,  is  their 
difference,  both  in  form  and  in  material.  What  then 
was  the  relation  of  the  author  to  these  earlier 
Correction  or  authorities?  Manifestly  he  was  not  bent 
Supplement        like    S.    Lukc    I   i-3    Upon    compiling    a 


22  GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS 

history  from  various  sources ;  it  is  his  sovereign 
independence  which  is  the  most  noteworthy  fact  in 
this  connection.  His  aloofness  amazes  us.  Now  and 
again  we  think  we  detect  an  allusion  to,  an  expla- 
nation or  correction  of,  a  Synoptic  incident,  yet  so 
elusive  is  it  that  only  in  the  rarest  cases  can  we  attain 
any  confidence  that  the  definite  account  was  before 
his  mind.  Yet  all  the  while  we  know  that  both  he 
and  his  readers  were  familiar  with  several  accounts 
of  the  Lord's  life,  some  of  which  were  held  in  singu- 
lar veneration ;  and  we  find  him  relying  upon  this 
current  information  to  such  an  extent  that  the  omis- 
sions of  his  Gospel  constitute  a  very  notable  feature 
of  it.  The  birth  in  Bethlehem,  the  Davidic  genealogy, 
the  Baptism,  the  Temptation,  the  Transfiguration,  the 
Pater  nosteVy  the  institution  of  Baptism,  the  Last 
Supper,  and  the  Ascension,  are  not  recorded  by 
S.  John.  Some  however  are  indirectly  alluded  to  and 
others  plainly  presupposed ;  and  at  all  events  it  is 
scarcely  claimed  any  longer  that  S.  John's  omissions 
are  implicit  denials.  If  we  take  note  of  the  points 
which  seem  to  be  corrections  in  minor  detail  of  the 
traditional  account,  as  for  instance  the  date  of  the 
Crucifixion,  they  are  revealed  so  incidentally  as  to  be 
practically  ineffective  for  correction  and  quite  in- 
^adequate  to  constitute  the  author's  set  aim.  It  is 
moreover  commonly  conceded  that  the  impression 
which  the  Gospel  makes  of  unity  of  design,  the  stamp 
of  a  single  moulding  principle,  precludes  the  idea  that 
the  form  of  its  development  was  subordinated  to  a 
purpose  of  incidental  correction  or  supplement.  But 
what  if  the  work  were  intended  to  traverse,  not 
incidentally,  but  in  principle,  the  Synoptic  represen- 


GENERAL   CHARACTERISTICS  23 

tation  of  Jesus?  Manifestly,  if  it  were  an  Apostle 
who  found  this  course  necessary,  he  could  not  in  any 
honesty  have  refrained  from  explicit  denunciation  of 
the  false  tradition.  But  what  if  it  were  rather  a 
philosopher  of  a  later  age  who  wished  to  coin  a 
representation  of  Jesus'  life  more  in  harmony  with  the 
developed  doctrine  of  the  Church,  but  precisely  on 
account  of  his  lack  of  authority  dare  not  break  openly 
with  the  venerated  tradition?  So  far  as  regards  the 
particular  point  at  issue  this  might  be  admitted  a 
plausible  explanation.  But  then  it  is  observed  (and 
here  is  one  of  the  turning  points  of  the  criticism)  that, 
both  in  detail,  and  in  the  general  account  of  the 
course  and  significance  of  events,  the  author  displays 
an  exactness  of  information  which  is  inconceivable  in 
a  dreamer  of  the  second  century.  This  throws  a 
strong  light  upon  the  question  of  the  author's  authority 
and  upon  the  reliableness  of  his  representation  as  a 
whole.  Of  such  traits,  the  most  commonly  acknowl- 
edged is  the  representation  of  repeated  attendance 
upon  the  feasts  at  Jerusalem,  with  the  consequent 
prolongation  of  Jesus*  ministry  and  of  his  activity 
in  Jerusalem  in  particular.  Without  this  hint  the 
development  of  the  history  recorded  in  the  Synoptists 
is  not  readily  conceivable.  To  meet  this  it  is  sug- 
gested that  the  author,  though  not  S.  John,  was  an 
immediate  disciple  who  wrote  out  of  the  fulness  of 
his  reminiscence  of  the  Apostle's  teaching.  But  we 
can  at  least  say  that  this  sovereign  attitude  toward 
the  tradition  looks  as  if  it  pointed  to  an  author  who, 
in  the  confidence  of  his  personal  and  intimate  witness 
of  the  facts  which  he  had  "  seen"  and  "  heard  "  and 
"  handled,"  could  not  feel  cumbered  about  the  pre- 


24  GENERAL   CHARACTERISTICS 

potence  of  any  external  authority ;  who  rather  wrote  at 
a  time  when  he  was  weighted  with  the  consciousness 
that  beside  himself, 

"  there  is  left  on  earth 
No  one  alive  who  knew  (consider  this)  — 
Saw  with  his  eyes  and  handled  with  his  hands 
That  which  was  from  the  first  the  Word  of  Life." 

Supplement  in  some  sense  was  the  aim,  for  a  supple- 
ment the  Gospel  practically  is :  but  it  is  precisely  in 
regard  to  the  motive  of  this  supplement  that  we  are 
interested.  The  aim  was  not  the  presentation  of 
specific  new  material,  for  that  end  would  have  been 
more  simply  accomplished  by  adhering  to  the  scheme 
of  the  Synoptic  account.  It  did  not  claim  to  com- 
plete the  record  of  the  events  of  Jesus'  life,  for  the 
author  naively  confesses  that  "  there  are  also  many 
other  things  which  Jesus  did,  the  which  if  they  should 
be  written  every  one,  I  suppose  that  even  the  world 
itself  would  not  contain  the  books  that  should  be 
written  21  25. 

We  approach  the  solution  when  we  note  that  the 
material  is  selected  with  particular  design.  The  inci- 
dents recorded  are  fewer  than  in  the  Synoptic  accounts, 
but  they  are  narrated  in  more  detail  and  with  more 
appreciation  of  both  their  pragmatic  and  their  dog- 
matic significance.  The  miracles  are  not  only  differ- 
ent, but  greater;  and  not  only  greater  (in  the  sense 
of  manifesting  more  clearly  the  exercise  of  super- 
natural power),  but  peculiarly  adapted  —  according 
to  S.  John's  constant  and  express  point  of  view  —  to 
serve  as  ''signs"; — that  is,  not  only  as  legitima- 
tions of  Jesus'  mission,  but  as  manifestations  of  its 
character. 


GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS  25 

Every    consideration    leads    us    to    conclude    that 
the  aim  of  the   Gospel  is  accurately  represented  in 

A  Representation  S-  J^^"'^  ^^"  declaration:  ''  Many  other 
of  the  signifi-  signs  therefore  did  Jesus  in  the  presence 
PersonisSr  ^^  ^^^  disciples,  which  are  not  written  in 
Mark  of  the        this  book;   but  these  are  written  that  ve 

GosDCl 

may   believe    that    Jesus    is    the    Christ, 
the   Son  of  God;    and   that  believing  ye  may  have  \P- 

life  in  his  name"  203031.  This  valuation  of  Jesus'  V^* 
miracles  is  particularly  expressed  in  relation  to  that 
**  beginning  of  signs"  which  he  did  in  Cana  of 
Galilee,  which  served  to  manifest  his  glory  and  en- 
courage the  faith  of  his  disciples  2  ".  But  it  is  not 
only  Jesus'  signs ;  it  is  also  his  teaching  which  has  j 
in  the  Fourth  Gospel  a  special  reference  to  his  Per- 
son. Jesus'  self-witness  is  nowhere  else  so  constant, 
so  clear  and  so  lofty.  To  this  difference  in  the  con- 
tent of  Jesus'  teaching  corresponds  a  difference  of 
form  which  hints  at  its  explanation.  It  is  commonly 
remarked  that  along  with  the  other  notes  of  differ- 
ence which  characterise  the  speeches  of  Jesus  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  with  the  absence  of  the  clear-minted 
gnomic  utterances  which  were  so  eminently  adapted 
for  oral  transmission,  there  fails  too  the  parabolic 
mode  of  teaching  which  was  the  most  notable  dis- 
tinction of  Jesus'  discourses  according  to  the  Synop- 
tists.  Nevertheless  there  is  an  abundance  of  lively 
natural  imagery  in  S.  John,  and  it  would  be  nearer 
the  truth  to  say  that  in  S.  John  we  have  the  parable 
elucidated  and  explained,  as  it  was  in  Jesus'  esoteric 
instruction  of  the  disciples.  That  there  was  an  eso- 
teric trait  in  Jesus'  teaching,  meant  only  for  the  closer 
disciples,   is    clearly   expressed   in   the   Synoptic    ac- 


26  GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS 

count,  Matt.  13  10.  The  parables  were  for  the  people, 
"  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  "  only  for 
the  disciples.  S.  John's  representation  then  is  to 
this  effect,  that  the  preponderance  of  Jesus'  teaching 
was  with  regard  to  his  own  Person :  what  he  was, 
and  what  men  must  believe  about  him.  But  S.  John 
carries  this  esoteric  trend  even  further;  for,  as  he 
sees  in  the  saying  of  Caiaphas  11  49-52  a  prophecy 
which  was  quite  aside  from  the  conscious  meaning 
of  the  speaker,  so  in  the  speeches  of  Jesus  he  reads 
a  meaning  which  even  the  Apostles  themselves  did 
not  divine  at  the  time  7  39.  More  remarkable  still 
however,  and  more  significant,  is  the  fact  that  the 
whole  character  of  the  representation,  the  general 
scheme  of  the  Gospel,  is  designed  to  bear  upon  this 
very  point.  Everything  is  made  to  hinge  upon  the 
appreciation  or  rejection  of  Jesus,  upon  belief  or  dis- 
behef  in  him,  upon  men's  ability  to  see,  or  their 
blindness  to  God's  manifestation  in  him. 

All  of  these  considerations  unite  in  representing 
that  the  aim  of  S.  John's  Gospel  was  a  higher  char- 
Tue  Teaching  of  a  acterisation  of  the  significance  of  Christ's 
Higher  signifi-  person.  In  the  first  place,  it  was  higher 
iSSnisUwAim  than  his  own  earlier  appreciation,  for 
oftheGospei  "that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,"  in  20  31,  is 
doubtless  a  confession  of  much  deeper  import  than 
the  identical  confession  of  S.  Peter  recorded  in  Matt. 
16  16,  and  "  Son  of  God  "  means  more  than  is  repre- 
sented in  the  genealogy  of  S.  Luke.  Not  only  was 
the  Resurrection  a  crisis  for  the  disciples'  apprecia- 
tion of  Jesus,  but  S.  John  doubtless  through  all  the 
years  of  his  life  grew  to  fuller  and  fuller  comprehen- 
sion  of  the  profound    words    and   mighty   deeds    of 


GENERAL    CHARACTER ISTICS  27 

which  he  was  witness.  In  fact  this  dev^elopment  in 
appreciation  of  the  truth,  and  particularly  of  the  truth 
concerning  Jesus,  is  an  idea  persistently  reiterated 
in  S.  John's  Gospel  in  connection  with  the  mission  of 
the  Comforter  1426  1526  16  12-14.  And  in  S.  John's 
reminiscence,  "  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto 
you,  but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now,"  "■  He  shall 
glorify  me,  for  he  taketh  of  mine,  and  shall  declare  it 
unto  you,"  we  read  his  own  consciousness  of  a  life 
spent  in  learning,  of  a  long  period  of  spiritual  guid- 
ance which  had  taught  him  to  see  all  acquisitions  of 
truth  in  their  reference  to  Jesus,  and  to  value  them 
as  they  conduced  to  glorify  him.  In  the  second 
place,  his  characterisation  of  Jesus'  Person  was  higher, 
not  than  the  belief  current  in  the  Church  (for  he 
shows  no  consciousness  of  writing  against  prevailing 
opposition,  and  the  very  term  Logos  is  introduced 
without  explanation,  as  a  thing  familiar  at  least  to 
the  circle  of  readers  immediately  in  view) ;  not 
higher  than  the  standpoint  of  the  writers  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  (witness  S.  Luke's  relation  to 
S.  Paul)  :  but  higher  than  the  prevailing  representa- 
tion, and  supplemental  to  it  in  precisely  this  respect. 
The  characteristic  difference  between  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  and  the  P^ourth  Gospel,  which  is  so  often 
accounted  to  the  discredit  of  the  latter,  is  explained 
simply  by  the  fact  that  S.  John's  Gospel    alone   was 

composed  by  a  companion  of  the  Lord. 
S'mrSm""  That  the  Gospels  of  S.  Luke  and  of 
posed  by  an  Eye-  g.  Mark  were  not  written  by  **  those  who 

from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses 
and  ministers  of  the  word,"  is  expressly  declared  by 
the  one  and  assumed  in  the  v^ery  name  of  the  other. 


28  GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS 

There  is  also  in  the  Gospel  of  S.  Matthew  no  single 
trait,  far  less  an  explicit  claim,  to  distinguish  it,  in 
respect  to  its  character  and  origin,  from  the  other 
two;  and  the  modern  critical  theory,  which  is  ac- 
cepted almost  as  widely  as  the  historical  method  itself, 
and  in  this  instance  is  accordant  with  early  tradition, 
posits  an  employment  of  literary  (or  oral)  sources 
by  all  the  Synoptists  alike.  There  are  grave  diffi- 
culties in  the  way  of  a  concordant  estimate  of  the 
nature  of  these  sources ;  but  that  the  Synoptic  ac- 
counts as  we  now  have  them  were  dependent  upon 
sources,  single  or  sundry,  written  or  oral,  and  were 
in  this  sense  secondary,  is  a  matter  of  general  agree- 
ment. It  is  worth  while  to  linger  a  moment  upon 
this  subject  that  we  may  glean  such  credit  as  it 
suggests  for  S.  John's  Gospel.  Now  between  the 
account  compiled  by  one  who  had  no  personal  experi- 
ence of  the  recorded  events,  and  that  of  an  eye-witness, 
there  is  an  essential  difference.  This  is  not  neces- 
sarily, as  it  is  often  assumed,  a  difference  of  historical 
accuracy,  but  of  independence.  The  speeches  of 
Jesus  which  are  recorded  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
are  in  a  sense  their  own  legitimation :  quite  apart 
from  the  confirmation  the  Gospels  receive  from  their 
acceptance  by  the  Church,  no  one  will  dispute  that 
they  represent  substantially,  and  even  with  formal 
accuracy,  the  character  of  Jesus'  teaching.  These 
sententious,  gnomic  utterances,  these  familiar  para- 
bles, were  not  only  peculiarly  adapted  to  take  the 
attention  of  the  people ;  but  in  a  degree  only  equalled 
by  rhythmic  forms  they  were  also  suited  for  accurate 
oral  transmission.  Such  sayings  as  readily  riveted 
themselves    upon    the    memory,  such    as  were   most 


GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS  29 

readily  intelligible  to  the  people,  which  must  there- 
fore have  formed  the  staple  of  Apostolic  preaching ; 
—  such,  and  such  alone,  could  have  constituted  the 
oral  Gospels  which  probably  preceded  the  written. 
It  is  in  the  highest  degree  creditable  to  the  faithful- 
ness of  the  Evangelists  that  they  remain  throughout 
subservient  to  the  authority  of  their  sources :  it  can- 
not be  claimed  that  they  have  coloured  the  speeches 
of  Jesus  from  their  individual  standpoints,  at  the  most 
one  can  infer  their  own  peculiarities  of  thought  from 
their  selection  and  arrangement  of  their  material.  We 
can  imagine  that  had  S.  John  written  a  diary  it  would 
have  been  found  similar  to  the  Synoptic  account  in 
this  respect,  that  the  words  and  deeds  would  have 
been  recorded  with  simple  objectivity  and  with  pre- 
cisely that  degree  of  appreciation  which  they  in 
fact  received  at  the  time ;  though  even  in  that  case 
there  would  have  been  an  emphasis  upon  the  things 
which  seemed  specially  significant  to  him.  But 
S.  John's  Gospel  is  something  very  different  from 
a  diary;  something  different,  too,  from  mere  story- 
telling. It  has  been  claimed  that  this  Gospel  is  not  a 
history  but  a  philosophy ;  and  with  a  certain  amount 
of  truth,  for  his  account  is  not  chiefly  interested  in 
the  narration  of  events,  but  in  the  significance  which 
they  had  with  respect  to  Christ.  Written,  as  is  uni- 
versally assumed,  in  his  extreme  old  age,  it  repre- 
sents what  the  Gospel  had  then  come  to  mean  to  him, 
and  what  he  would  have  all  men  understand  it  to 
mean.  He  had  a  certain  liberal  disregard  of  formal 
accuracy,  which  was  due  to  his  consciousness  that  all 
that  he  had  learnt  was  from  Christ,  that  his  teaching 
was  Christ's  teaching,  and  that  he  consequently  could 


30  GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS 

not  misrepresent  the  truth,  as  he  strove  to  exposit,  In 
his  own  terms  and  to  a  generation  which  stood 
already  far  both  in  time  and  place  from  the  facts 
which  he  relates,  the  central  significance  of  the  mani- 
festation of  him  who  was  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God. 
I  shall  struggle  no  longer  to  picture  the  standpoint 
from  which  S.  John  wrote,  for  Robert  Browning  has 
done  it  with  rare  historic  insight  in  '*  A  Death  in 
the  Desert." 

"  Since  much  that  at  the  first,  in  deed  and  word, 
Lay  simply  and  sufficiently  exposed. 
Had  grown  (or  else  my  soul  was  grown  to  match. 
Fed  through  such  years,  familiar  with  such  light, 
Guarded  and  guided  still  to  see  and  speak) 
Of  new  significance  and  fresh  result; 
What  first  were  guessed  as  points,  I  now  knew  stars, 
And  named  them  in  the  Gospel  I  have  writ." 

He  would  have  all  others  see  as  he  saw,  confident 
that  his  vision  was  no  subjective  idealisation ;  but 
that,  however  he  himself  may  have  failed  in  that 
earlier  day  to  see,  the  truth  was  nevertheless  there 
manifested  in  objective  reality,  and  only  because  men 
were  blind  did  they  fail  to  see,  only  because  they  were 
deaf  did  they  fail  to  hear. 

"  Then  stand  before  that  fact,  that  Life  and  Death, 
Stay  there  at  gaze,  till  it  dispart,  dispread, 
As  though  a  star  should  open  out,  all  sides. 
Grow  the  world  on  you,  as  it  is  my  world." 

This  considerable  excursion  into  the  province  of 
Biblical  criticism  is  only  justifiable  inasmuch  as  it  has 
Subjective  and  brought  to  notice  many  of  the  pecuhar- 
objective  ities  of  S.  John's  Gospel  which  must  be 

kept  in  view,  and  in  especial  the  relation  of  his  thought 


GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS  31 

to  the  Person  of  Christ  which  is  the  most  outstanding 
moment  of  his  doctrinal  presentation.  This  Hne  of 
thought  leads  us  directly  to  the  consideration  of 
another  characteristic  of  a  general  nature  without 
v/hich  the  organisation  of  S.  John's  thought  must  be 
incomprehensible,  or  at  least  self-conflicting.  This  is 
the  fact  that  together  with  a  preponderating  repre- 
sentation of  the  subjective  significance  of  Christ's 
manifestation  (according  to  which  the  rev^elation  of 
God  in  Christ  seems  to  be  of  itself  sufficient  for  the 
accomplishment  of  salvation)  S.  John  contends  most 
emphatically  for  the  objective  reality  of  the  things  nar- 
rated. It  seems  at  first  sight  as  though  he  were  inter- 
ested only  in  the  moral  effectiveness  of  the  revelation  ; 
but  again  it  is  *'  that  which  we  have  heard,  that  which  we 
have  seen  with  our  eyes,  and  our  hands  have  handled," 
and  the  orthodox  confession  is  "  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
come  in  the  flesh."  This  is  not  the  manner  of  a  man 
who  stands  far  from  the  event  and  is  solely  concerned 
with  its  philosophical  or  ethical  importance.  The 
comparison  with  S.  Paul  is  instructive  in  this  con- 
nection. F'or  him  also  the  objective  reality  of  the 
great  dogmatic  facts  of  Christ's  life  is  of  essential 
importance :  but  the  difference  lies  in  this,  that 
whereas  S.  Paul  in  accordance  with  his  analytic 
genius  abstracts  the  dogmatic  moment  from  the  lively 
unity  of  its  personal  and  ethical  connection  (it  is  the 
death  and  the  resurrection  of  Christ  which  are  the 
indispensable  basis  of  his  dogmatic  scheme),  S.  John 
has  ever  before  his  eye  the  life  of  Jesus  as  a  whole, 
and  finds  in  it  at  one  and  the  same  moment  the  basis 
of  dogmatic  inference  (its  objective  importance),  and 
its  subjective  value  as  the  highest  revelation.     It  is 


32  GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS 

for  this  reason  that  he  regards  the  Incarnation  as  the 
prime  fact,  precisely  because  it  is  the  most  inclusive 
category.  It  is  not  that  S.  John's  emphasis  lay  upon  the 
Incarnation  in  the  narrower  sense,  as  a  particular 
moment  in  Jesus'  career  (his  birth,  the  inception  of 
his  life)  ;  or  as  a  separable  dogma,  contrasted  for 
instance  with  his  Death.  '^  The  Word  became  flesh  " 
I  14  is  rather  (like  ''  coming"  i  9,  "  manifested  "  I.  i  2 
and  "  sent "  I.  4  m)  an  expression  for  the  total  mani- 
festation of  Christ  (birth,  life,  death,  and  resurrection)  ; 
and  serves  at  once  to  denote  a  dogmatic  fact  and  to 
express  the  significance  of  Christ  as  the  Revealer  of 
God  I  18.  This  characteristic  of  S.  John  runs  through 
and  through  his  representation,  and  the  failure  to  take 
account  of  it  is  largely  responsible  for  the  common 
though  erroneous  opinion  that  the  Death,  the  Resur- 
rection, and  the  Ascension  of  Christ  have  no  dogmatic 
importance  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  It  is  unquestion- 
able that  the  prevailing  emphasis  of  S.  John  is  upon 
the  subjective  appropriation  of  salvation  through  the 
revelation  of  the  truth,  and  it  seems  at  times  6  63  as 
though  in  this  interest  he  were  bent  upon  rationalis- 
ing the  objective  facts  of  Christ's  life.  The  fact  is 
however  that  these  two  ranges  of  ideas  subsist  side  by 
side  without  the  least  consciousness  on  the  part  of  the 
writer  of  any  contrast,  far  less  of  any  contradiction, 
between  them. 

S.  John's  treatment  of  the  **  works"  of  Jesus  throws 
light  upon  his  conception  of  Jesus'  Work  in  the 
greater  sense.  The  miraculous  works  of  Jesus, 
S.  John  calls  **  signs  " ;  and  not  only  by  this  name, 
but  by  his  constant  representation,  he  reveals  his  con- 
ception of  them   as   expressions   of  Christ's  mission, 


GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS  33 

and  that  in  a  double  character :  as  wonders,  exceed- 
ing the  limits  of  natural  force,  they  legitimate  his 
mission  as  from  God  3  2 ;  as  symbols  they  reveal  the 
character  of  his  mission  6  2.  In  the  first  point  of  view 
it  is  the  greatness  of  the  miracle  which  is  significant 
5  20  731 ;  in  the  second,  it  is  its  kind  10  32.  The  resur- 
rection of  Lazarus  owes  its  importance  not  merely  to 
its  character  as  a  wonder,  but  to  the  fact  that  it  mani- 
fests Jesus  as  the  Resurrection  and  the  Life.  Similarly 
the  healing  of  the  blind  man  brings  out  the  idea  of 
light,  the  feeding  of  the  multitude,  the  idea  of  bread, 
and  the  beginning  of  signs  in  Cana  surely  owes  its 
significance  as  a  manifestation  of  his  glory  to  some- 
thing more  than  the  mere  natural  impossibility  of  the 
wonder,  —  it  reveals  in  fact  the  contrast  between  the 
attitude  of  Jesus  and  the  traditional  position  of  Israel ; 
between  the  regime  of  ceremonial  purification  (to 
which  John  the  Baptist  still  belonged),  and  the  glad 
life-giving  wine  of  the  Gospel.  All  the  signs  of  Jesus 
serve  to  manifest  in  visible  and  earthly  form  the  charac- 
ter of  his  work  in  the  more  real  though  invisible  sphere. 
But  the  idea  that  **  the  signs  "  are  for  S.  John  merely 
symbolical  representations  of  the  thought  contained 
in  Jesus'  word,  leaves  out  of  consideration  the  fact 
that  with  even  greater  emphasis  he  denominates  them 
"  works!'  As  signs,  Jesus'  works  are  practically 
words ;  but  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that  word  and 
work  are  constantly  contrasted,  that  each  is  in  a 
certain  sense  the  supplement  of  the  other,  each  being 
in  its  own  special  way  a  ground  of  faith.  The  signi- 
ficance of  Jesus'  miracles  lies  very  essentially  in  this, 
that  they  represent  works  wrought,  as  well  as  truth 
taught.     A  mere    talking  Christ   does  not   help  the 

3 


34  GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS 

world  ;  the  Son  therefore  manifests  himself  (and  also 
reveals  the  Father)  as  a  worker  5  17.  The  "  works  " 
have  for  S.  John  a  special  importance,  distinguished 
from  that  of  the  **  words  "  in  this,  that  they  reveal  the 
will  and  the  might  to  perform  that  which  is  promised 
in  the  "  word."  Therefore  it  is  not  the  speech  but 
the  deed  of  Christ  which  is  essentially  the  ground  of 
faith ;  —  *'  if  I  do  not  doy  believe  me  not  "  10  37.  The 
"  word  "  is  a  ground  of  faith  only  in  so  far  as  it 
includes  in  itself  the  assurance  that  the  "  work  "  will 
follow,  and  this  confidence  it  rightly  evokes  because  it 
comes  from  God.  The  Father  not  only  speaks,  but 
he  "  doeth  his  works  "   14  10. 

In  another  aspect  however  the  *'  word  "  is  raised  in 
dignity  above  the  "  work  ";  and  that  not  only  because 
it  brings  to  expression  more  perfectly  than  the 
material  sign  the  significance  of  Jesus'  Person  and 
promise ;  but  because  precisely  as  word  it  belongs 
to  a  higher  sphere,  is  namely  **  spirit"  664,  whereas 
the  work  considered  merely  as  a  wonder  belongs  to 
the  earthly  sphere  and  is  **  flesh."  It  is  from  this 
point  of  view  that  the  insufficiency  of  the  sign  as  a 
motive  of  faith  is  frequently  emphasised.  '*  Flesh," 
the  sphere  in  which  the  sign  is  wrought,  has  not  with 
S.  John  any  connotation  of  evil,  of  sin  ;  it  is  simply  un- 
profitable 6  63,  —  flesh  generates  only  flesh  and  cannot 
raise  itself  to  the  sphere  of  spirit  3  6.  It  cannot  how- 
ever be  supposed  that  in  663,  Jesus  means  to  cast 
discredit  upon  the  miracle  of  the  loaves,  for  it  was  a 
work  of  God  though  wrought  in  the  earthly  sphere, 
it  was  also  a  sign  and  hence  in  a  sense  a  word ;  — 
thought  wedding  itself  to  fact.  Spirit  and  flesh, 
elsewhere    contrasted,    here    become    one ;    each   of 


GENE  RAT.    CHARACTERISTICS  35 

Jesus'  works  is  an  epitome  of  his  Work  in  its  totality, 
for  in  each  is  exemph'fied  the  Word  bccominj:^  flesh. 
We  can  thus  see  how  it  is  that  the  works  of  Jesus 
have  at  one  and  the  same  time  and  inseparably  the 
significance  of  a  deed  done  in  all  objective  actuality, 
and  of  a  revelation  whose  importance  lies  in  its  sub- 
jective appreciation. 

This  helps  us  to  understand  the  constant  blending 
—  we  cannot  say  confusion  —  of  subjective  and  ob- 
jective, which  may  be  observed  in  S.  John's  treatment 
of  Jesus'  "  Work"  174  in  the  greater  sense.  The 
same  passage,  chapter  6,  serves  as  a  transition  to 
this  subject.  As  Jesus'  words  in  verse  63  cannot  be 
supposed  to  disallow  the  divine  significance  of  his 
miracle ;  neither  can  they  be  considered  an  attempt 
to  rationalise  the  "  hard  saying."  If  eating  his  flesh 
meant  nothing  more  than  accepting  the  revelation 
contained  in  his  teaching,  there  would  have  been  left 
in  this  saying  no  cause  of  stumbling.  The  real  and 
objective  importance  of  Christ's  descent  from  heaven 
6  38,  his  death  6  s',  and  his  ascension  662,  is  not  nullified 
by  the  fact  that  they  are  at  the  same  time  vehicles  of 
revelation  and  in  this  sense  have  the  same  significance 
(quickening,  spiritual,  life-giving)  as  the  words  that 
he  speaks.  In  the  hard  saying  6  52-59  about  the  eating 
of  his  flesh  we  are  compelled  to  recognise  —  quite 
apart  from  its  obvious  association  with  the  sacrament 
of  the  Last  Supper  —  a  reference  to  his  death  in 
terms  of  sacrifice,  and  after  every  attempt  has  been 
made  to  rationalise  it  in  terms  of  revelation  and 
spiritual  communion,  there  must  remain  a  residuum 
of  absolutely  objective  character ;  —  or  else  Jesus 
made    use    of  an    expression    which   was    needlessly 


1,6  GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS 

offensive  to  his  disciples.  It  was  not  the  eating  of 
his  flesh  in  objective  reah'ty,  which  was  stigmatised  as 
unprofitable,  and  opposed  to  the  spirit ;  but  the  blind 
'  ignorance  of  the  people  who  could  not  see  in  his 
words  the  profound  spiritual  idea  of  sacrifice.  In 
saying,  '*  The  words  that  I  have  spoken  unto  you  are 
spirit,  and  are  life,"  he  cannot  be  supposed  to  be 
explaining  a  sentence  which  was  imperfect  and 
enigmatical ;  but  in  the  most  solemn  way,  and  in  the 
face  of  misunderstanding,  he  bears  witness  to  the 
foregoing  words  as  the  perfect  and  ultimate  expres- 
sion of  truth ;  —  for  the  words  which  are  spirit  and 
life  are  none  other  than  these,  "  Except  ye  eat  the 
flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have 
not  life  in  yourselves." 

S.  John  in  every  individual  moment  of  Jesus'  life 
and  in  his  total  manifestation  sees  these  two  factors, 
word  and  work ;  and  though  he  distinguishes  them, 
he  never  thinks  of  them  as  separable.  They  stood 
in  a  relation  of  contrast ;  and  yet  the  work  was  in  a 
sense  a  word,  and  the  word,  a  work.  That  Christ's 
word  was  at  all  times  a  work  was  a  conception  very 
essential  to  S-  John.  It  was  suggested  by  the  crea- 
tive word  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  and  was  thus 
immediately  connected  with  his  use  of  the  term 
Logos  in  the  prologue.  The  power  of  Christ's  word 
is  seen  not  only  in  the  performance  of  his  miracles, 
but  in  the  fact  that  it  was  a  powerfully  eflicient  and 
life-giving  revelation.  And  so  the  word  wrought 
and  the  work  taught,  and  yet  each  was  a  distinct 
factor  essentially  irreducible  to  the  terms  of  the  other, 
though  both  became  one  in  the  Incarnation  of  the 
Logos.     Of  these   two  factors,  it  was  doubtless  the 


GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS  37 

word,  the  idea  of  revelation,  upon  which  S.  John 
predominantly  dwelt ;  but  both  arc  to  be  felt  often 
where  only  one  is  expressed,  and  neither  can  be 
counted  to  nullify  the  other.  How  naive  was  S. 
John's  mode  of  thought  may  be  seen  sufficient!}' 
from  one  example :  **  Herein  was  the  love  of  God 
manifested  in  us  .  .  .  that  he  sent  his  Son  the  pro- 
pitiation for  our  sins  "  I.  4  9  1°.  Here  in  accord  with 
S.  John's  constant  conception  the  significance  of 
Christ's  coming  (sending)  into  the  world,  and  in 
particular  of  his  death,  lay  largely  in  the  revelation 
which  was  thereby  made  of  God's  love ;  and  yet  the  ^ 
death  of  Christ  remains  none  the  less  2l  propitiation ^  |\ 
and  quite  apart  from  any  subjective  apprehension  of 
it,  he  views  it  as  the  propitiatory  sacrifice  "  also  for 
the  sins   of  the   whole  world  "  I.  2  2. 

It  has  been  necessary  to  dwell  so  long  on  this 
point  because  it  is  precisely  here  that  S.  John  is 
most  commonly  and  fatally  misinterpreted.  S.  John's 
doctrine  cannot  be  evaporated  into  a  mere  subjective 
system  of  revelation,  faith,  knowledge,  life ;  it  grasps 
the  mere  fact,  tJie  flesh,  and  finds  in  it  a  significance 
which  is  not  to  be  ignored  because,  as  a  mystery 
transcending  the  understanding,  it  is  not  a  frequent 
topic  of  the  exposition.  If  this  were  not  so,  we 
should  indeed  be  obliged  to  ascribe  the  Johannine 
writings  to  a  speculative  genius  of  the  second  century, 
who  stood  far  from  the  facts,  and  valued  only  the 
moral  effectiveness  of  the  tale.  We  should  be  forced 
to  admit  that  a  Palestinian  Jew  could  not  have  strayed 
so  far  from  the  pragmatic  postulates  of  his  inherited 
faith.  But  with  the  appreciation  we  have  just  gained 
of  S.  John's  mode  of  thought  we  may  perceive  that  so 


38  GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS 

far  from  its  being  the  reflection  of  a  philosopher,  it  is 
the  intuition  of  an  eye-witness  which  best  serves  to 
explain  this  characteristic  blending  of  subjective  and 
objective  in  a  unity,  which  is  nothing  else  than  the 
unity  of  a  person.  The  Person  of  Christ  was  for  S. 
John  the  grand  fact,  which  he  estimated  on  all  sides, 
but  did  not  analyse.  With  this  characteristic  of  the 
Johannine  writings  the  historical  situation  of  the 
Apostle  John  is  not  only  in  no  way  inconsistent; 
we  may  rather  say  that  such  a  situation  is  demanded 
as  the  only  adequate  explanation  of  the  facts. 

There  are  many  other  characteristics  of  the  Johan- 
nine writings  which  are  elucidated  by  the  character, 
the  position  and  the  development  of  S.  John.  His 
early  passage  through  the  school  of  the  Baptist  to 
the  inmost  circle  of  Christ's  followers,  his  gradual 
and  spontaneous  development,  help  in  particular  to 
explain  the  difference  between  him  and  S.  Paul. 
There  was  for  him  no  essential  opposition  between 
Law  and  Gospel ;  for  the  freedom  of  his  early  Galilean 
life  was  not  crushed  in  Pharisaic  bondage.  He  had 
The  Intuitional  ^^^"^^^^  the  law  from  Christ,  and  although 
Character  of  s.  Jesus'  attitude  toward  law  was  radically 
John's  Thought    ^^^^  5  JqJ^j^  ^^^^^  j^  natural  to  express 

the  teaching  of  Christ,  and  indeed  the  sum  of  his 
self-revelation,  as  the  "  new  commandment."  He 
had  passed  through  no  such  sudden  spiritual  revolu- 
tion as  S.  Paul,  and  hence  did  not  like  him  conceive 
of  the  conflict  of  good  and  evil  as  fought  out  within 
the  sphere  of  the  individual  conscience.  Though  he 
recognised  the  opposing  principles  quite  as  vividly, 
he  did  not  name  them,  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
human  consciousness.  Flesh  and  Spirit;   but,  in  view 


GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS  39 

of  the  great  world  drama  which  he  beheld  enacting 
about  him  (as  in  the  Apocalypse),  Light  and  Dark- 
ness. The  nature  of  S.  John's  thought  is  profoundly 
contemplative  and  intuitional.  Nothing  can  be  further 
from  truth  than  to  call  him  speculative.  He  never 
speculates,  he  sees.  He  is  called  the  Seer  of  the 
Apocalypse ;  he  might  be  called  no  less  aptly  the 
Seer  of  the  Gospel,  the  Seer  of  the  Epistle.  He 
sees  a  drama :  the  conflict,  and  finally  the  victory,  of 
the  powers  of  Light  over  the  Darkness;  and  he 
simply  writes  what  he  sees.  He  sees  the  earthly 
manifestation  of  the  Son  of  God;  and  he  pictures  it 
in  his  Gospel : 

"  To  me  that  story  —  ay,  that  Life  and  Death, 
Of  which  I  wrote  *  it  was,'  —  to  me  it  is ; 
—  Is,  here  and  now  ;  I  apprehend  nought  else." 

He  leans  upon  Jesus'  breast,  looking  into  the  beloved 
face  which  reveals  to  him  the  light  of  the  Glory  of 
God  ;  and  in  the  full  inspiration  of  that  sight  he  turns, 
in  his  Epistle,  to  impart  to  his  brethren  the  practical 
significance,  the  moral  result,  of  that  manifested  life. 
Logical  analysis,  dialectical  method  in  general,  was 
quite  foreign  to  S.  John.  His  thought  moves  grandly 
in  the  sphere  of  a  few  profound  ideas  the  significance 
of  which  he  develops  by  contrast.  For  the  anti- 
thetical expression  which  is  so  characteristic  of  his 
writings  he  finds  the  immediate  suggestion  in  the 
parallelism  of  Hebrew  literature.  Moreover  in  what 
seem  at  first  to  be  disconnected  antitheses  there  is  a 
real  progression  of  thought,  and  a  mode  of  develop- 
ment which,  far  as  it  is  from  representing  a  continuous 
deductive  sequence,  has  nevertheless  all  the  formality 


40  GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS 

of  a  syllogism.  But  antithesis  is  for  S.  John  far  more 
than  a  literary  form  or  a  figure  of  speech.  It  is  the 
expression  of  his  deepest  thought.  He  sees  every- 
thing in  its  essential  character,  and  hence  in  fun- 
damental contrast ;  —  not  blended  and  mingled  with 
its  opposite  as  it  is  in  phenomenal  experience.  The 
fundamental  contrast  between  God  and  all  that  is  not 
of  God,  he  names  according  to  its  different  aspects : 
Light  and  Darkness,  Life  and  Death,  Love  and  Hate. 
The  Logos  is  conceived  of  in  no  theosophic  manner 
as  the  mediator  of  this  contrast ;  —  he  was  manifested 
to  destroy  the  works  of  the  Devil,  the  Darkness  is  to 
be  abolished,  and  is  already  passing  away  before  the 
shining  of  the  true  Light. 

S.  John  distinguishes  between  different  stages  of 
development;  but  he  sees  in  the  germ  the  potency 
of  the  fruit,  and  therefore  eternal  life  is  actually 
possessed  by  the  believer  now,  though  its  full  fruition 
is  to  be  expected  in  the  hereafter.  Appreciation  of 
Christ's  Person  and  confidence  in  his  might  is  called 
faith,  In  every  stage,  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest, 
and  at  every  stage  it  works  eternal  life  because  it 
makes  that  knowledge  to  be  truly  living,  upon  which 
eternal  life  depends ;  we  have  even  now  a  true  knowl- 
edge of  God  which  works  In  us  his  likeness,  though 
we  shall  be  perfectly  like  him  only  **  when  we  see 
him  as  he  is." 

S.  John's  ideas,  not  only  in  the  Gospel  but  in  the 
Epistle,  cluster  more  closely  about  Christ  than  do 
those  of  any  other  writer.  It  may  not  be  just  to  say 
that  S.  John's  thought  Is  swayed  more 
tion  of  s.  John's  than  another's  by  the  Christian  point 
Thought  to  Christ  ^f  view;  but  there  Is  in  this  respect  a 


GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS  4 1 

peculiarity  in  his  mode  of  thought  which  is  best 
brought  out  by  a  comparison  with  S.  Paul.  This 
difference  between  S.  Paul  and  S.  John  is  in  accord 
with  the  mental  peculiarities  we  have  already  noted. 
S.  Paul's  doctrine  is  no  less  securely  rooted  in  Christ; 
but  he  is  free  to  move  away  from  that  central  point 
along  the  chain  of  a  dialectical  argument,  his  thinking 
moves  in  enthymemes,  and  so  his  ideas,  which  are  no 
less  really  attached  to  the  centre,  are  attached  less 
directly.  S.  John  on  the  other  hand,  as  we  have 
found,  simply  sees  and  knows  and  tells.  S.  Paul  can 
draw  arguments  from  all  sides,  examples  from  law, 
inductions  from  history,  analogies  from  nature;  and 
although  he  converges  them  all  upon  the  central 
truth  he  thereby  exhibits  a  point  of  difference  from  S. 
John.  S.  John  never  moves  a  step  away  from  the 
centre.  That  word  which  he  uses  with  predilection 
to  describe  the  close  relation  of  the  believer  to 
Christ — "  dwelleth,"  or  '*  abideth,"  in  him — might 
be  used  to  describe  this  characteristic  of  his  thought ; 
it  abides  in  him.  When  I  study  S.  John's  Epistle,  I 
picture  him  leaning  still  upon  Jesus'  breast,  and  ever 
gazing  into  his  face.  If  there  is  any  question  to 
solve,  he  finds  the  answer  there.  No  argument  is 
needed ;  —  or  only  one  step  of  argument,  as  he 
directly  subsumes  the  case  under  the  idea  of  the 
nature  of  God.  If  there  is  a  problem  raised  by  the 
lack  of  harmony  in  the  brotherhood,  he  looks  up 
into  the  face  of  God  and  in  that  look  he  knows  that 
*'  he  that  loveth  not  knoweth  not  God,  for  God  is 
love."  If  the  brotherhood  is  tempted  to  sin,  the 
denunciation  comes  with  a  directness  and  absoluteness 
which  is  simply  perplexing  and  inconceivable  except 


42  GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS 

from  this  point  of  view.  We  see  again  the  ardent, 
fiery  spirit  of  the  Son  of  Thunder;  the  same  man 
who  In  the  Apocalypse  anathematised  the  lukewarm, 
and  ever  sees  things  In  their  deepest  nature  as  con- 
trasts. Looking  into  the  face  of  Jesus,  into  that  face 
which  is  to  him  the  perfect  revelation  of  the  love  and 
holiness  of  God,  he  cannot  but  say:  *'  He  that  sin- 
neth  hath  not  known  God."  A  very  simple  but 
significant  illustration  of  the  constant  attachment  of 
S.  John's  thought  to  Christ  Is  his  use  in  the  Epistle 
of  the  pronouns  He  and  Him  {^avro^^,  ^Keivo^^  for 
Christ  (or  God),  but  with  grammatical  reference  so 
loose  that  the  reader  is  often  puzzled  about  the 
syntax.  It  is  only  because  it  is  manifest  that  the 
thought  of  Christ  is  constantly  uppermost  in  S. 
John's  mind  that  there  is  no  real  hesitancy  in  deter- 
mining the  reference  of  these  familiar  pronouns.  In 
reading  S.  John's  Epistle  we  adapt  ourselves  so 
thoroughly  to  his  spirit  that  it  seems  in  the  end 
natural  to  refer  to  *  Him  '  as  though  He  were  always 
the  subject  of  the  preceding  clause.  There  is  how- 
ever often  a  real  difficulty  in  distinguishing  whether 
the  reference  is  to  Christ  or  to  God  I.  I  s-io,  though 
the  discussion  of  commentators  on  this  point  is  quite 
beside  the  mark,  for  the  significance  of  this  apparent 
looseness  of  expression  Is  just  this,  that  to  S.  John  It 
was  all  the  same :  he  knew  the  Father  only  as  he  was 
revealed  in  the  Son,  and  his  inmost  thought  was  reg- 
ulated by  the  truth  which  he  recorded,  "  I  and  the 
Father  are  one  ''  1030. 

The  very  language  of  S.  John  reflects  the  simplicity 
of  his  mental  processes.  It  also  indicates  his  affinity 
with  Hebrew  thought ;   and  the  hint  which  we  derive 


GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS 


43 


from  this  general  consideration  is  confirmed  by  the 
more  particular  study  of  the  relation  of  S.  John's 
The  Aramaic  ideas  to  the  Old  Testament.  This  is  a 
Traits  of  point  of  the  utmost  importance   for  the 

guage Furnish  Study  ot  b.  John,  for  not  only  does  the 
HScASfni-  <^"^stion  of  authorship  hinge  upon  it, 
ties  of  his  but  its  appreciation  affects  quite  radically 

Thought  ^1^^  interpretation  and  construction  of  the 

Johannine  theology.  Depending  as  we  must  upon 
delicate  inference  for  the  establishment  of  the  author's 
system  of  theology,  it  cannot  but  be  of  prime  interest 
for  us  to  know  whether  the  background  of  his  thought 
about  God  and  the  world  was  Hebrew  or  Greek.  We 
cannot  in  our  study  proceed  upon  the  mere  assump- 
tion of  the  traditional  view  of  the  author's  relation  to 
Judaism ;  but  still  less  dare  one  neglect  this  assump- 
tion, or  without  proof  to  the  contrary,  deny  that 
which  is  the  intended  implication  of  the  Gospel  itself. 
In  the  detailed  treatment  of  S.  John's  several  ideas 
we  shall  notice  the  close  relation  to  Old  Testament 
conceptions,  and  the  total  impression  must  be  that  the 
author  was  bred  in  the  atmosphere,  and  instinctively 
clothed  his  ideas  in  the  forms,  of  Jewish  thought.  We 
have  here  only  to  remark  upon  the  Aramaic  charac- 
teristics of  S.  John's  style  ;  a  more  objective  consider- 
ation, and  one  which,  though  it  carries  the  main 
assumption  with  it,  is  less  a  subject  of  dispute. 

The  consideration  of  linguistic  peculiarities,  is,  in 
its  very  nature,  a  study  too  minute  to  be  presented 
here  with  proof  and  reference.  But  the  following 
points  are  obvious  enough  to  be  perceived  even  in 
the  English  translation.  That  the  Gospel  was  written 
for  Greek-speaking  Christians  is  shown  by  the  frequent 


44  GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS 

explanation  of  Aramaic  words  and  Hebrew  customs. 
To  this  agrees  the  unimpeachable  tradition  that 
S.  John  found  the  later  sphere  of  his  activity  in 
the  essentially  Heathen-Christian  communities  of 
Asia  Minor.  The  Gospel  was  therefore  originally 
written  in  Greek.  Yet  notwithstanding  a  certain  readi- 
ness and  ease  in  the  use  of  the  Greek  tongue,  which 
presumes  a  prolonged  residence  in  Greek  surround- 
ings, one  can  still  distinguish  through  the  Greek  dress 
the  type  of  the  mother  tongue  of  the  Palestinian.  The 
most  general  signs  of  it  are :  the  simple  and  un- 
periodic  structure  of  the  sentences ;  the  monotonous 
connection  of  sentences  by  "  and,"  "  but,"  "  then,"  to 
the  neglect  of  the  rich  store  of  particles  which  in 
Greek  served  to  express  so  precisely  the  logical 
relation  of  the  clause ;  the  circumstantiality  and 
monotony  of  the  expressions ;  and  the  fondness  for 
antithesis  and  parallelism.  Aramaic  characteristics 
of  speech  are  so  predominant  that  some  have  been 
tempted  to  suppose  an  Aramaic  original  of  the  Greek 
text.  The  Gospel,  which  is  relatively  poor  in  direct 
quotations,  is  largely  coloured  by  implicit  references 
to  the  Hebrew  Scriptures ;  and  in  the  Epistle,  which 
contains  no  direct  quotations  at  all,  the  expression  is 
so  obviously  moulded  by  the  Old  Testament  that  its 
Hebraistic  affinity  has  been  urged  as  a  ground  for 
distinguishing  its  author  from  that  of  the  Gospel.  In 
the  same  direction  point  the  use  of  Hebrew  words 
and  names  (rabbi,  rabboni,  Cephas,  Messias,  Gabbatha, 
Golgotha)  especially  the  "  verily  verily "  (amen 
amen),  and  the  explanation  of  Siloam  9  7 ;  the  famili- 
arity with  the  places  and  customs  of  Palestine,  with 
the  relations  of  Jews  and  Samaritans,  and  with   the 


GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS  45 

different  parties  within  Judaism.  These  consider- 
ations justify  us  in  seeking  at  least  a  close  relation 
between  S.  John's  thought  and  the  theology  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  suggest  the  presumption  that  the 
laciiricB  of  his  exposition  are  to  be  supplied  from 
the  current  conceptions  of  contemporary  Judaism. 

The  following  construction  of  the  Johannine  the- 
ology proceeds  from  a  recognition  of  these  pre- 
dominant characteristics  of  the  author's  thought:  of 
the  principle  of  contrast  which  is  regulative  of  his 
thought  through  and  through,  and  is  expressed  by 
Light  and  Darkness  and  the  whole  line  of  correlative 
antitheses ;  of  the  intuitive  faculty  which  represents 
stages  of  development  pictorially,  dramatically,  in 
terms  of  vision,  rather  than  under  the  rubrics  of  logic ; 
of  the  blending  of  subjective  and  objective,  which 
without  prejudice  to  the  real  importance  of  Christ's 
work  represents,  in  a  manner  not  exclusively  yet 
characteristically  Johannine,  the  accomplishment  and 
content  of  salvation  in  terms  of  revelation,  light, 
knowledge  ;  and  of  the  background  of  Jewish  thought 
which  determines  the  conception  of  God  and  of  the 
world,  and  finds  the  specific  content  of  salvation  in  a 
new  and  filial  relation  to  God  in  the  community  of 
the  chosen  brotherhood.  The  great  contrast  is  that 
between  God  and  the  world.  This  contrast  is  not  so 
much  resolved  as  revealed  by  the  manifestation  of 
the  Logos,  who  even  "  in  the  flesh  "  is  not  a  synthesis 
of  God  and  not-God ;  but,  as  one  who  is  essentially 
and  perfectly  God  and  Light  he  provokes  in  the 
Darkness  a  continual  judgment  (/c/o/crt?)  and  separ- 
ation between  the  light-loving  elements  and  those 
which  are  constituted  in  their  inmost  nature  children 


46  GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS 

of  the  Devil.  This  manifestation  of  the  Son  of  God 
in  the  world  effects  at  once  the  destruction,  "  passing 
away,"  of  the  kingdom  of  evil  and  the  gathering  to- 
gether of  the  children  of  God  into  one ;  and  both  are 
accomplished  as  well  by  what  is  objectively  wrought 
by  him,  as  by  the  inherent  power  of  his  revelation  of 
the  truth ;  —  by  his  work  as  well  as  by  his  word. 

This   scheme   of  thought   is   presented    under  the 
following  topics: 

I.    God. 
II.    The  Logos  with  God. 

III.  The  Kosmos  lying  in  Darkness. 

IV.  The  Life  Manifested. 

A.  Salvation  out  of  the  world. 

1.  The  doom  of  the  world. 

2.  Election  of  the  children  of  God. 

B.  Realisation    of    the    positive    concept     of 

salvation, 

1.  The  New  Birth. 

2.  Eternal  Life. 

3.  The  Children  of  God.  —  Fellowship. 

Likeness  to  God. 
Love. 

Confidence. 
Prayer. 


THE    THEOLOGY   OF   S.   JOHN 


I 

GOD 

GOD  IS  LIGHT 

S.  John  justifies  the  name  of  Theologian,  which 
appears  in  the  traditional  title  of  the  Apocalypse, 
God  the  Centre  t)y  the  central  position  which  he  gives  to 
of  Theology  the  doctrine  of  God.  Although  the  Gos- 
pel is  professedly  a  history  of  Jesus'  life,  and  the  Epistle 
is  mainly  intent  upon  the  solution  of  the  practical 
problems  of  the  Christian  brotherhood,  S.  John's 
teaching  is  throughout  and  in  the  strictest  sense 
theology.  For  the  history  which  he  records  is  in 
every  detail  the  revelation  of  God,  and  his  ethics  is 
simply  resolved  into  the  imitation  of  God.  There  are 
advocates  nowadays  of  a  "  Christo-centric "  the- 
ology :  the  word  is  obviously  a  solecism ;  but  no- 
where is  the  impropriety  of  the  distinction  which  is 
here  raised  between  Christo-centric  and  Theo-centric 
better  shown  than  in  the  writings  of  S.  John.  We 
have  already  remarked  upon  the  absolutely  central 
position  which  Christ  occupies  in  S.  John's  thought; 
but  we  saw  at  the  same  time  how  in  his  Epistle  he 
blends  his  reference  to  Christ  with  his  reference  to 
the  Father.  Christ  is  the  centre  of  his  theology,  but 
just  for  that  reason  God  is.  For  one  of  the  prime 
articles  of  his  faith  is  the  profession  of  Christ  "  I  and 
the  Father  are  one"   1030.     The  whole  significance 

4t- 


50  GOD 

of  Jesus  depends  upon  his  relation  to  God :  upon  the 
fact  that  as  the  only  begotten  Son  he  is  the  only 
**  exegete  "  of  the  Father  i  is ;  as  the  Word  (which 
in  the  beginning  was  with  God,  which  was  God)  he 
was,  not  only  in  word,  in  work,  in  character,  but  in 
nature,  the  revelation  of  God.  The  high  faith  which 
he  demanded  in  the  last  hour  of  intercourse  with  the 
disciples  was,  "  that  I  am  in  the  Father  and  the  Father 
in  me  ;  he  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father'' 
149  10.  And  with  all  it  is  the  Father  and  not  the 
Son  which  is  the  centre  of  S.  John's  thought.  The 
lofty  self-consciousness  of  Jesus,  which  is  so  promi- 
nent in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  finds  no  higher  expression 
than  the  relation  of  son  to  father ;  and  precisely  this 
Gospel  which  would  teach  the  very  highest  signifi- 
cance of  Jesus'  Person  is  most  untiring  and  emphatic 
in  its  assertion  of  the  subordination  of  the  Son  as 
son.  The  assertion,  "  The  Father  is  greater  than  /" 
1428,  is  not  an  anomaly,  but  the  key-note  of  Jesus' 
self-witness.  The  passages  are  too  numerous  for 
reference  in  which  Jesus  himself  testifies  to  the  der- 
ivation of  all  his  power  from  the  Father.  This  is 
indeed  implicit  in  the  name  itself,  and  is  expressed 
in  almost  all  of  his  utterances  about  the  Father.  It 
is  the  Father  who  sent  him  1249  639  816;  his  life 
and  his  death  is  in  keeping  with  his  Father's  com- 
mandment 15  10  10  18;  he  came  not  to  do  his  own 
but  the  Father's  will  5  30 ;  his  works  are  the  Father's 
works  and  done  in  his  name  10  25  37;  he  speaks  only 
of  what  he  has  seen  8  38,  heard  1 5  15,  and  learnt  8  2s  from 
the  Father ;  his  very  life  is  derived  from  the  Father 
5  26  657;  and  his  position  in  the  world  is  completely 
characterised  by  this,  that  he  is  not  as  one  who  comes 


GOD  IS  LIGHT 


51 


in   his   own   name,   but  **  I  am  come  in  my  Father's 
name  "  5  43. 

It  is  clear  from  the  foregoing  that  God  is  to  S.  John 
the  subject  of  all-absorbing  interest.  And  we  are 
prepared  for  the  solemn  emphasis  with  which,  in  the 
opening  of  his  Epistle  i  ^  he  sums  up  the  good  tid- 
ings of  Christ  in  a  single  proposition  about  God : 
"  God  is  light,  and  in  Jiini  is  no  darkness  at  all!' 
There  is  in  the  whole  range  of  the  New  Testament 
no  second  passage  which  can  be  placed  along  side  of 
this  as  a  considerate  and  solemn  statement  of  the 
essential  content  of  Christ's  revelation  to  men.  The 
importance  which  S.  John  attaches  to  this  utterance 
is  shown,  not  only  by  its  immediate  introduction, 
**  This  is  the  message  which  wc  have  received  from 
him,  and  annou7ice  unto  you  "  /  but  by  the  position 
which  it  occupies  at  the  beginning  of  the  Epistle,  and 
by  the  general  introduction  of  the  first  four  verses. 
These  introductory  verses  make  it  plain  that  the 
message  which  he  here  summarises  is  not  only  what 
he  had  learnt  from  the  words  of  Jesus,  but  is  the 
epitome  of  his  total  manifestation.  It  is  evident  that 
S.  John  intends  here  to  express,  so  far  as  language 
can  express, ''  the  Word  of  life ^'  "  the  manifested  life,'' 
*'  what  we  have  seen  and  handled,''  as  well  as  "  what 
we  have  heard!' 

This  passage  is  an  important  proof  of  the  just- 
ness of  S.  John's  judgment,  the  right  proportion  of 
his  thought,  which,  with  all  its  emphasis 
upon  the  saving  revelation,  of  Christ, 
realises  that  the  message  attains  its  highest  and  most 
universal  expression,  not  in  a  proposition  concerning 
the  fate  of  man,  but  in  a  demonstration  of  the  char- 


52 


GOD 


acter  of  God.  That  S.  John  was  able  to  pack  the 
Gospel  message  into  one  proposition,  is  due  to  the 
fact  that  he  speaks  in  symbols ;  and  precisely  on  this 
account  is  it  difficult  to  give  a  matter  of  fact  interpre- 
tation of  this  brief  but  all  embracing  definition.  The 
employment  of  symbolical  language  is  characteristic 
of  S.  John,  and  it  is  this  which  enables  him  to  ex- 
press his  whole  theology  in  the  compass  of  a  few 
profound  ideas,  the  relations  of  which  to  each  other 
undergo  protean  changes  according  as  one  or  another 
side  of  the  symbolical  reference  is  predominant.  This 
is  an  elusive  mode  of  thought,  and  nowhere  more  so 
than  in  the  case  of  the  term  light. 

There  is  another  respect  in  which  this  sentence  is 
highly  characteristic  of  S.  John,  namely  in  its  anti- 
thetical form.  It  is  in  this  case  hardly  more  than  a 
question  of  form,  for  the  negative  clause  adds  no  new 
conception,  though  it  gives  definition,  and  heightens 
immensely  the  impression  of  moral  conviction,  with 
its  impetuous  denial :  "  and  darkness  in  him  there  is 
none  I " 

The  commonest  use  of  the  word  light  in  S.  John  is 
also  in  accordance  with  the  simplest  and  most  obvi- 
ous suggestion  of  the  figure.  When  Jesus  says  **  I 
am  the  light  of  the  world  "  8  12  9  5,  the  term  is  appar- 
ently used  with  the  same  simplicity  of  significance  as 
in  Mat.  5  m,  "  Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world,"  denot- 
ing the  pervading  moral  influence  of  pure  example, 
Mat.  5  13-16,  it  being  the  attribute  of  light  that  it 
shines  and  giveth  light  to  all  that  are  in  the  house,  as 
it  is  of  salt  that  it  giveth  savour  to  that  with  which  it 
comes  in  contact.  This  simple  application  of  the 
figure  in  the  sense  of  moral  revelation  and  enlighten- 


GOD  IS  LIGHT  53 

ment  is  still  clearer  in  123536,  "Yet  a  little  while  is 
the  light  among  you.  Walk  while  ye  have  the  light, 
that  the  darkness  overtake  you  not;  and  he  that 
walketh  in  darkness  knoweth  not  whither  he  goeth." 
But  here  the  ethical  meaning  passes  into  the  soteri- 
ological,  "  Believe  on  the  light,  that  ye  may  become 
sons  of  light,"  and  reminds  us  that  with  S.  John  the 
highest  meaning  which  he  attaches  to  a  word  is 
seldom  quite  absent  from  it,  even  in  what  appears  a 
simpler  and  lower  use.  Nevertheless  for  the  under- 
standing of  S.  John's  use  of  this  term  we  must  hold  fast 
to  the  fact  that  its  primary  significance  is  that  of 
revelation,  manifestation.  The  most  objective  use  of 
it  in  this  sense  is  in  3  20  21,  "  For  every  one  that  doeth 
ill  hateth  the  light,  and  cometh  not  to  the  hght,  lest 
his  works  should  be  reproved.  But  he  that  doeth  the 
truth  cometh  to  the  light,  that  his  works  may  be  made 
manifest,  that  they  have  been  wrought  in  God." 

It  must  however  be  evident  that  this  active  signi- 
fication falls  short  of  many  of  S.  John's  uses  of  the 
term.  And  in  fact  the  passage  just  quoted  makes  it 
clear  how  the  terms  light  and  darkness  might  acquire 
a  purely  ethical  significance  as  the  spheres,  or  even 
the  very  principles,  of  good  and  evil.  In  this  sense 
S.  Paul  uses  them,  Eph.  5^9  6  12 II.  Cor.  6  u,  and  that 
this  is  an  element  in  S.  John's  idea  is  shown  by  his 
use  of  darkness  in  an  active  sense  and  as  a  positive 
concept  Is  1235  I.  2".  We  can  here  observe  the 
influence  of  the  Old  Testament  point  of  view  (com- 
mon also  in  Greek  generally),  according  to  which 
light  denotes  a  state  of  undisturbed  happiness,  of 
prosperity,  and  of  salvation,  just  as  darkness  means 
a  state  of  peraition,  because  every  form  and  develop- 


54  ^^^ 

mcnt  of  life  is  conditional  upon  light.  In  accordance 
with  this,  light  with  S.  John  denotes  not  only  the  con- 
dition of  happiness  5  35,  but  of  life  itself  8  12.  It  hence 
gains  a  more  positive  content,  as  an  effective  force,  a 
power  which  works  a  change  in  objects,  as  well  as 
reveals  their  character.  Still,  all  of  this  does  not 
suffice  to  explain  the  use  of  the  word  in  I.  i  5,  where 
it  is  regarded,  not  as  an  active  force,  but  as  an 
immanent  quality.  God  is  light  cannot  be  taken  as 
an  assertion  of  the  essential  nature  of  God  as  com- 
posed of  light-substance,  for  this  would  be,  to  S. 
John  especially,  a  matter  of  comparatively  little 
interest,  and  could  not  in  any  sense  be  regarded  as 
an  expression  —  far  less  as  the  complete 'expression 
—  of  the  revelation  given  in  Christ.  Neither  can  it 
denote  merely  the  fact  that  God  is  a  being  clear  and 
intelligible,  and  that  self-revelation  is  his  very  nature ; 
for  the  "  walking  in  the  light "  and  "  in  darkness  "  of 
the  following  verses  dwells  upon  the  ethical  import 
of  the  terms.  The  fact  is  that  S.  John's  use  of  hght 
in  this  passage  is  so  emphatic,  so  evidently  consider- 
ate and  weighty,  that  it  is  more  reasonable  to  inter- 
pret all  other  uses  of  the  term  by  means  of  this,  than 
to  narrow  this  magnificent  statement  to  the  dimen- 
sions of  what  is  conceived  to  be  his  common  use. 
Now  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  S.  John  found  in 
Jesus  the  revelation  of  God  as  holiness,  power,  and 
love ;  and  this  much  at  least  must  be  included  in 
the  expression  God  is  lii^ht.  And  it  is  not  hard  to 
see  how  he  came  to  use  this  expression  in  this  sense. 
For  regarding  light  primarily  as  revelation  —  that 
which  reveals  —  and  regarding  Christ  as  t/ic  man- 
ifestation of  the  life  I.  i  2  and  of  the  truth,  he  could 


GOD   IS  LIGHT  55 

not  fail  to  think  also  of  the  content  of  the  revelation, 
—  holiness,  power,  justice,  love.  For  light  is  not 
only  that  v/hich  reveals,  it  is  also  a  substance  of 
particular  character,  and  it  is  because  of  its  substantial 
character  that  it  reveals,  and  not  only  reveals,  but 
"  makes  light "  Eph.  5  13  whatever  it  manifests.  It  is 
a  beneficent  power  which  produces  joy  and  life.  It 
is  therefore  by  no  means  strange  that  S.  John  should 
employ  this  word  to  express  the  immanent  quality  of 
God ;  nor  does  this  expression  stand  alone,  as  is 
commonly  supposed ;  for  we  can  read  back  from  this 
and  see,  in  the  sayings  which  describe  Christ  and  the 
Logos  as  light,  the  same  conception,  that  he  is  the 
sum  of  all  the  revelation  of  good  which  he  brings. 
And  though  the  content  of  this  saying  must  be 
supplied  from  elsewhere,  namely  from  the  whole 
Gospel,  it  is  none  the  less  a  statement  of  the  highest 
importance.  For  it  shows  not  only  that  God  was  the 
essential  subject  of  S.  John's  Gospel ;  but  how  ab- 
solutely the  Logos  —  who  was  light  —  was  conceived 
as  the  revelation  of  God ;  —  what  the  Logos  man- 
ifested himself  to  be,  that  God  is.  And  it  shows  how 
thoroughly  S.  John  grasped  **  the  message"  as  good 
tidings,  as  joy  and  life,  as  the  brightest  message  that 
could  possibly  be  conceived  ;  —  "  no  darkness  at  all!' 
Although  this  whole  store  of  ideas  is  not  expressed  by 
the  term  light  itself,  it  was  a  matter  of  great  moment 
to  S.  John  that  he  had  a  word  with  which  he  could 
associate  the  whole  sum  of  the  Gospel  message,  and 
the  essential  nature  of  God.  It  was  characteristic 
of  S.  John  to  express  much  in  little,  and  we  need  not 
be  afraid  to  see  in  this  word  also  an  active  signification. 
As  it  is  the  very  nature  of  the  "  word  "  to  reveal,  so 


56  GOD 

it  is  the  nature  of  light  to  shine,  to  give  Hght;  and  it 
is  surely  not  going  beyond  S.  John's  idea,  when  we 
see  here  an  expression  of  God's  activity  5  17  towards 
his  creatures;  when  we  see,  in  the  light  which  tri- 
umphs over  the  darkness,  an  expression  of  God's 
might; — a  might  which  is  especially  manifested  by 
the  production  of  the  fruits  of  light  in  the  children 
who  walk  in  his  light  I.  i  7.  There  is  still  another 
aspect  under  which  God  is  thought  of  in  relation  to 
light.  The  divine  Glory  which  from  time  to  time 
was  manifested  to  Israel  was  thought  of  as  an  envelope 
of  light;  and  this  idea  has  a  marked  influence  upon 
the  use  of  the  word  in  the  New  Testament.  We 
read:  "the  glory  of  God  shone"  Luke  29;  "the 
brightness  of  his  glory  "  Heb.  i  3;  the  light  which  over- 
shadowed Christ  on  the  mount  is  called  "  the  glory  " 
II.  Pet.  I  17 ;  and  S.  Paul  in.  connection  with  the  glory 
of  Moses'  countenance  11.  Cor.  3  7,  speaks  of  "  the 
light  of  the  Gospel  of  the  glory"  4  4,  and  "  the  light 
of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  "  4  6.  This 
idea  is  especially  prominent  in  the  Apocalypse  :  "  the 
earth  was  lightened  with  his  glory"  18  »,  and  "the 
glory  of  God  did  lighten  it"  21 23.  But  in  the  writ- 
ings which  we  are  studying,  the  only  passage  in 
which  it  appears  to  have  definitely  influenced  S. 
John's  thought  is  I.  I  7  "  as  he  is  in  the  light."  The 
form  of  this  expression  is  doubtless  determined  by 
the  parallel,  "walk  in  the  light,"  but  it  shows  also 
how  natural  it  was  to  speak  of  the  light  as  the  element 
in  which  God  lives,  as  darkness  is  the  element  which 
characterises  the  world.  There  are  obvious  sugges- 
tions from  many  points  of  view  for  the  choice  of  this 
symbol;  but  having  once  chosen  it  S.  John  invests 


THE    TRUE   GOD  57 

it  with  a  depth  of  meaning  peculiarly  his  own,  and 
the  expression  in  I.  i  s  is  so  far  from  being  a  solitary 
use,  that  we  must  regard  it  rather  as  the  climax  of  a 
series,  and  read  back  into  even  the  apparently  simple 
uses  of  the  term  something  of  the  pregnancy  of  this 
extraordinary  summary  of  theology,  God  is  light. 

THE   TRUE  GOD 

The  Logos  become  flesh  revealed  not  only  an  idea 
of  God  characterised  by  attributes  of  goodness, 
mercy  and  love ;  but  by  revealing  these  qualities  in 
his  own  person  he  reveals  them  as  realities,  and  God 
as  the  essentially  existing.  S.  John,  like  the  other 
Apostolic  writers,  had  no  interest  in  the  contention 
that  God  isy  as  the  mere  contradictory  of  the  prop- 
osition God  is  not ;  but  in  a  deeper  sense,  in  the  sense 
that  God  is  the  source  of  all  existence,  S.  John  does 
very  strongly  emphasise  this  proposition.  He  prob- 
ably included  this  idea  in  his  conception  of  light  as 
the  positive  reality  opposed  to  the  negative  dark- 
ness; but  he  had  in  the  word  true  a  less  doubtful 
and  more  definite  expression  for  it.  The  proposition 
"  God  is  spirit "  4  m  includes  not  only  the  idea  that 
his  nature  is  dififerent  from  the  objects  of  sense ;  but 
more  particularly  and  positively,  that  he  is  a  reality 
of  a  higher  sort.  This  is  not  a  definition  of  merely 
speculative  interest,  its  practical  bearing  is  shown  in 
the  requisition  that  the  true  worshippers  must  wor- 
ship God  in  "spirit  and  in  truth  "  423  24;  — that  is,  in 
a  way  corresponding  to  reality.  We  shall  see  else- 
where how  close  is  the  relation  of  the  words  spirit 
and  truth ;   and  the  relation  also  of  the  truth  to  faith 


58  GOD 

and  to  salvation  is  discussed  under  another  topic. 
Here  we  have  to  consider  God  as  tJie  true  I.  5  20. 
This  word,  true,  with  the  substantive  and  adverb, 
truth  and  truly,  {aXr)drj<;,  aX7}dLv6<;,  aXi'jdeia,  oXtjOm';, 
ufirjv)  are  used  so  significantly  by  S.  John  that  we 
have  no  need  to  rely  upon  the  striking  expression  of 
the  Apocalypse  ''  Which  is  and  which  was  and  which 
is  to  come  "  1 4  s  to  demonstrate  his  interest  in  the 
assertion  of  the  essential  reality  of  God's  existence. 
The  connection  of  Ex.  3  14  shows  that  the  description 
of  God  as  "the  existing"  (6  iov)  is  not  prompted  by 
a  metaphysical  interest,  but  in  accordance  with  the 
practical  character  of  Hebrew  thought  it  is  set  forth 
as  the  ground  of  faith.  So  also  the  description  of 
him  as  *'  the  true "  (tov  a\7]6iv6v)  I.  5  20  is  to  be 
considered,  according  to  the  analogy  of  Hebrew 
thought,  as __the_  ground.  iQiLtlie._confidence__QiLiailh. 
The  common  connotation  of  the  English  words  true 
and  truth  is,  like  the  root  meaning  of  the  correspond- 
ing Greek  words,  a  relative  idea ;  it  denotes  the  cor- 
res£ondeiice  of  an  obJ£ct__wjth  its  idea,  or,  in  an 
opposite  sense,  of  an  idea  v/ith  the  reality.  On  the 
other  hand  the  root  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  words 
0OJ<»  i^D^^)  *i^^*^^  their  constant  use,  is  similar  to  the 
root  meaning  of  our  iMiglish  words  and  their  oc- 
casional use.  As  true  and  truth  arc  akin  to  troth 
and  trust,  so  the  whole  range  of  words  derived  from 
the  Hebrew  root  in  question  express  faithfulness, 
reliability,  and  even  faith  itself.  Tj^p  Grt^ek  word  has 
aiijrrtcUijc^tual_cast,  it  has  to  do  with  ideas  and  their 
relation  to  the  facts  which  they  are^ssumed^^o_rep- 
resent ;  the  Hebrew  word  deals  primarily  not  with 
propositions,  witTi  their  adequacy  and  veracity;   but 


THE    TRUE   GOD  59 

with  persons  and  things,  and  it  describes  them  as 
realities  which  may  be  leaned  upon,  relied  upon, 
trusted.  This  range  of  Hebrew  (Aramaic)  words 
inffuences  profoundly  S.  John's  use  of  the  correspond- 
ing Greek  terms;  the  Hebrew  meaning  is  super- 
added to  the  Greek,  but  as  the  word  truth  does  not 
thereby  lose  its  intellectual  connotation,  it  is  brought 
from  this  side  also  into  close  relation  to  faith  as  an 
act  of  perception.  There  is  at  least  a  striking  com- 
mentary to  this  Hebraism  of  S.  John's  in  Rev.  3  m. 
Christ  is  there  called,  by  a  simple  transliteration  of 
the  Aramaic  word,  "the  amen"  («/a^V),  and  S.  John 
merely  translates  this  expression  when  he  calls  Christ 
or  God  "the  true"  (o  akrjOivoi;).  The  constant  use 
of  the  double  "  amen  amen  "  in  S.  John's  Gospel  is  a 
sign  of  his  attachment  to  this  Hebrew  word.  There 
is  a  clear  distinction  in  S.  John's  use  of  the  two  ad- 
jectives aX7)6t]<i  and  aXrjdLvof; ;  thee'*  former  abides 
morejclosdynbyjLhe  radical  meaning  of  clear,  manifest, 
that_which  is  true  in  distinction  from  that  which 
is  mendacious,  it  remains  a  relative  idea  demanding 
another  subject  in  regard  to  which  the  person  or 
thing  is  true  jrit  is  a\7)6iv6^  which  is  used  to  express 
the  positive,  real  rather  than  relative,  significance,  of 
the  Hebrew  idea.  It  describes  the  subject  in  ques- 
tion in  rts'^¥olute  nature,  and  thereby  ascribes  to  it 
truth  as  its  proper  and  essential  character.  The  con- 
tr^st  which__d£fcie^s_  a\7?^7)9Js^generally  that  between 
veracity  and  falsehood ;  while  that  suggested  by 
dX^Slvo^  is  Setween^essent^l  and_  effective  reality, 
an^  empty  and  deceptive  apu^arance,  The  Hebrew 
analogy  extends  even  to  individual  expressions.  The 
connection    of  true  and  truth  with    witness    5  a  etc. 


60  GOD 

and  with  judgment  8 16  is  thoroughly  Hebraic. 
"  He  who  sends  me  is  true "  7  28  has  its  parallel  in 
Jer.  26 's;  "lead  you  into  all  the  truth"  16  13,  in  Ps. 
25  5.  Truth  and  light  i  9  I.  2  s  are  also  brought  into 
connection  in  the  Psalter  43  3.  The  "  true  vine " 
15  1  has  its  counterpart  in  Jer.  2  21.  There  are  other 
instances  in  which  the  form  of  S.  John's  expres- 
sion may  be  shown  to  be  influenced  by  an  Aramaic 
phrase,  and  still  others  in  w^hich  his  idea  is  seen  to 
be  thus  determined. 

After  this  general  explanation  we  can  approach  the 
proper  subject  of  this  section  with  the  consideration 
of  the  expression  *'  full  of  grace  and  truth  "  in  i  14. 
The  high  significance  which  S.  John  attaches  to  this 
utterance  is  shown  not  only  by  the  fact  that  it  stands 
in  the  Prologue;  but  by  the  evident  intention  of 
summarizing  in  this  verse  the  positive  significance  of 
Christ's  manifestation ;  and  by  the  contrast  in  which 
he  sets  this  expression  to  the  Old  Testament  revela- 
tion I  >7.  It  is  significant  too  as  the  solitary  recurrence 
in  the  New  Testament  of  the  Hebrew  jlOJ^l  1011 
(*'  lovingkindness  and  truth  ")  so  commonly  applied 
to  God's  revelation  of  himself  Ex.  34  6  II.  Sam.  2  6 
Ps.  2510  40  10  II  86  IS  983  115  I  1382.  This  pair  of 
ideas  appears  in  the  Synoptists  in  the  form  "  mercy 
and  faith  "  {to  €X€o<;  koX  rj  irlan^')  as  qualities  to  be 
exercised  by  men ;  whereas  S.  John  with  "  grace  and 
truth  "  (J)  %ttpt9  Kal  1)  d\i]6eLa)  reproduces  precisely 
the  Hebrew  idea  of  qualities  displayed  by  God.  In 
Ex.  34  6  the  revelation  of  God  is  given  in  his  solemn 
proclamation  of  his  name  as  full  of  mercy  and  truth. 
When  in  the  Prologue  this  solemn  designation  is 
transferred  to  the  Logos,  it  is  as  an  expression  of  his 


THE    TRUE   GOD  6 1 

glory  as  the  only  begotten  from  the  Father,  and  rests 
upon  the  fact  that  precisely  as  the  only  begotten  Son 
he  is  the  interpreter  of  the  invisible  God  i  is.  The  Law, 
which  characterised  the  Old  Testament  economy  i  17, 
was  but  an  imperfect  revelation    of  God  because  it 
represented  him  only  in  terms  of  such  injunctions  as 
could    be    practically   enforced    in    human    society; 
whereas   the   more  perfect   revelation    expressed   by 
'*  the  Name,"  which  was  in  old  time    merely  *'  pro- 
claimed," was  first   "  beheld  "  in  the  Word  become 
flesh.     That  which  was  God's  peculiar  character  and 
glory   is    at   the   same   time  Jesus'    distinction,    his 
personal  possession  and  his  gift  to  the  world.     Jesus 
himself  is  therefore  the  truth  14.  6  because  in  him  the 
su|Ti  of  the  qualities  hidden  in   Gi)d  is  presented  an_d 
revealed  to  the  world.     By  the  very  fact  of  his  com- 
ing in  fulfilment  of  promise,  by  his  coming   in  the 
flesh,  and  by  the  ethical  quality  of  the  life  which  he 
manifests,  hej^eveals  God  asJ//^Lto^£ju3^  ±he  sense^of 
the  faithfuLthe  reliable,    the  absolutely   real.     The 
truth  is  divine ;  it  does  not  come  into  being  through 
human  perception  and  speech,  but  exists  in  perfect 
completeness  above  and  apart  from   any  intellectual 
appreciation  on  the   part  of  men.     Only  within  the 
world  can  there  be  ascribed  to  it  a  becoming  (eVeVejo) 
I  17,  and  here  it  acquires  existence  and  might  through 
Jesus'  work  and  witness.     The  truth  is  divine,  and  yet 
S.  John  never  speaks  of  God's  truth,  any  more  than 
of  God's  light,    or  of  God's  life.     He  does   not  dis- 
tinguish a  double  light,  human  and  divine ;  but  light 
and  life  are  a  unit,  belonging  peculiarly  to  God,  and 
what  there  is  in  the  world  of  light  and  life  is  the  pro- 
duct and  gift  of  God.     In  the  same  way  he  concen- 


62  GOD 

tratcs  the  idea  of  truth  into  an  undivided. unity*  it  is 
God's  nature  and  being,  he  is  "  the  only  true  "  (top 
fiouou  dXiiOivov)  1/3.  "  The  truth  "  does  not  comprise 
information  upon  every  subject;  it  is  Hmited  to  the 
revelation  of  God  in  Christ  (or  through  the  Spirit) 
1 6  13-15.  This  which  on  one  side  expresses  absolutely 
the  divine  nature  as  reality,  expresses  also  its  relation 
to  men.  For  the  truth  has  relation  to  the  conscious 
spiritual  activity  of  man,  to  the  "  understanding " 
(Siupoiav),  and  can  be  "known"  I.  5  8  32 ;  **  God's 
word  is  truth  "  17  '? ;  and  so  like  "  light"  it  represents 
God's  nature  in  terms  of  an  active  force,  and  in 
relation  to  his  rational  creation.  It  is  in  this  con- 
nection that  the  Spirit  and  the  truth  are  brought  into 
relation  423,  the  Spirit  is  "the  Spirit  of  the  truth" 

14  17  15  26  16 13;  "  the  Spirit  is  the  truth"  I.  5  &.  In 
this  connection  too  truth  and  life  are  brought  together 
I.  5  20,  and  in  their  union  constitute  "  the  way  "  to  God 
146.  AH  things  in  the  world  which  have  reaHty  in 
the  deepest  sense  partake  of  it  from  God ;  hence 
"the  true  light"  i  9  I.  2  8,  **  the  true  bread"  632, 
"  the  true  food  "  and  "  drink  "  6  55,  "  the  true  vine" 

15  >.  S.  John  speaks  of  that  which  is  "  truly  love" 
I.  2  5  I.  3  >8  in  distinction  from  love  which  is  mere 
pretence,  of  "  the  true  worshippers  "  4  23,  of  being 
"  truly  disciples  "  8  31.  The  opposite  of  truth  is  a  //>,  a 
conception  which  does  not  merely  indicate  con- 
scious and  intentional  deception  ;  but  the  whole  realm 
of  mere  appearance,  of  deception,  of  naught.  As  the 
truth  belongs  to  God,  so  the  lie  characterises  Satan, 
and  he  who  in  his  inmost  being  is  dependent  on  him^' 
and  fashioned  after  him  has  him  for  "  father."  The 
truth,  as  God's  nature,  is  the  root  of  all  worthy  human 


THE  FATHER  63 

existence;  man  maybe"  of  the  truth  "  1837  I.  3  19  as 
he  may  be  '*  of  God,"  and  both  conceptions  coin- 
cide 1837  847.  The  truth  is  connected  both  with 
knowledge  and  with  deed;  both  expressions  are 
used :  "  to  know  the  truth,"  and  "  to  do  the  truth  " 
8  32  3  21.  In  fact  its  closest  relation  is  to  deed,  and 
only  secondarily  does  it  come  into  relation  to  knowl- 
edge 7  17  I.    I  6  3  18. 

We  have  been  obliged  here  to  anticipate  certain 
aspects  of  S.  John's  idea  of  truth  which  come  more 
properly  under  another  topic.  It  was  necessary  to 
study  the  word  at  once  on  all  sides  in  order  that  we 
might  understand  the  significance  which  S.  John 
attached  to  the  definition  of  God  as  the  true.  Under 
this  term  he  describes  him,  not  only  as  one  who  is 
veracious  and  faithful  3  33  (a  covenant  keeping  God 
I.  I  9 ;  —  see  faithful  and  true  of  the  Apocalypse  3  m, 
also  Holy  and  true,  true  and  just)  ;  but  as  the  essential 
reality.  He  describes  him,  not  only  as  the  true  God 
in  distinction  from  other  national  deities,  and  from 
''  idols,"  but  as  "  the  alone  true."  We  are  in  position 
now  to  appreciate  the  solemnity  of  the  final  utterance 
of  the  Epistle,  in  which  S.  John  expresses  the  absolute 
confidence  of  his  faith:  "  And  we  know  that  the  Son 
of  God  is  come,  attd  hath  giveft  ns  an  mider standing, 
that  we  know  the  True,  and  are  in  the  True,  in  his  Son 
Jestis  Christ ;  —  this  is  the  true  God  and  eternal  life!' 

THE    FATHER 

That  S.  John  thought  of  God  very  definitely  as  a 
person  is  a  sure  deduction  from  his  relation  to  He- 
brew thought ;   but  it  was  also  determined 
Personauty        ^^^  ^^  ^^^^  ^^^^  ^^^  ^^^^  revealed  to  him 


64  ^^^ 

in  a  person,  Jesus.  Therefore  with  all  the  use  he 
makes  of  such  abstract  terms  as  light  and  truth,  which 
are  equally  apt  to  describe  an  impersonal  deity,  and 
might  represent  his  activity  as  readily  in  terms  of 
emanation  as  of  conscious  voluntary  action,  his  favour- 
ite name  for  God  is  "  the  Father." 

S.  John  does  not  use  the  word,  create  (Troieiv)  ;  but 
iyevero  has  practically  that  meaning  in  I  3 ;   and  we 

might  almost  say  that  this  verse  —  **  with- 
The Creator  ,  .      ,,    1      t  ct  ^  j.t,' 

out  him,    the  Logos,     was  not  any  thmg 

made  "  —  is  expressly  formulated  to  leave  room  for 
the  superior  creative  activity  of  God.  The  close 
parallel,  which  we  shall  later  study,  between  the 
Prologue  and  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  puts  it  be- 
yond a  doubt  that  S.  John  thought  of  God  as  Crea- 
tor; the  omission  of  a  statement  to  this  effect  is 
merely  significant  of  the  fact  that  he  did  not  dwell 
with  any  interest  upon  the  material  factors  of  the 
world. 

It  was  not  however  as  Creator  that  God  was  Father. 
This  much  vaunted  doctrine  of "  the  Fatherhood  of 
God  "  in  the  universal  sense,  is  not  a  Christian  idea 
at  all ;  it  has  no  point  of  contact  with  Hebrew 
thought,  nor  is  there  a  single  passage  in  the  New 
Testament  which  expresses  it ;  —  except  S.  Paul's 
quotation  before  the  Areopagus,  from  "  certain  of 
your  poets  "  :  **  For  we  are  also  his  offspring."  It  is 
in  fact  a  heathen  idea,  and  is  to  be  distinguished 
from  the  Christian  idea,  not  only  for  the  sake  of  his- 
torical accuracy,  but  because  it  is  not  capable  of  the 
depth  of  meaning  which  we  find  attached  to  God's 
Fatherhood  in  the  New  Testament  and  especially  in 
S.  John. 


THE   FATHER  65 

S.  John,  like  the  Greek  poet,  thinks  of  God's  children 

as  "  his  offspring"  in  a  very  real  sense;   not  however 

^  ..^  «  ^  i"  virtue  of  their  material  creation  in  the 
God  the  Begetter   -,      ,      ,  -    ,  ,  .     , 

flesh,  but  of  the  new  birth  **  of  the  Spirit " 

3  3-7.  S.  John's  expression  in  i  ",  **  to  them  gave 
he  the  right  to  become  children  of  God,"  suggests  a 
nominal  or  legal  conception  of  the  status  of  the  chil- 
dren of  God,  like  S.  Paul's  sonship  by  adoption ;  but 
the  real  sense  of  fatherhood  by  Begetting  is  expressed 
in  the  same  sentence :  **  which  were  begotten,  not  of 
bloods,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will 
of  man,  but  of  God."  And  in  I.  3  »  the  privilege  of 
merely  nominal  sonship  is  exceeded  by  the  real 
relation :  "  Behold  what  manner  of  love  the  Father 
hath  bestowed  upon  us,  that  we  should  be  called  chil- 
dren of  God;  —  atid  are"  {kXtjOw/hcv,  Kai  eV/xer). 
This  conception  of  the  real  nature  of  God's  parental 
relation  is  everywhere  predominant  with  S.  John, 
and~3ouBtless  affected  his  choice  of  the  word  *'  chil- 
dren "  {reKva)  rather  than  sons  (viol),  to  express  a 
likeness  of  nature  rather  than  a  position  of  privilege. 
The  name  Sou  is  reserved  for  Christ. 

The  profound  significance  of  S.  John's  idea  of  God, 
as  the  begetter  of  life,  in  relation  to  the  children, 
The  only  Begot-  ^^  demonstrated  by  the  fact  that  the  same 
ten  Son  and  the  terms  are  used  to  describe  his  relation  to 
Children  ^^^  ^^^      j^^  favourite  expression  which 

S.  John  uses  to  describe  Christ's  nature  and  privilege 
is  that  of  "  Son  "  1 34  20  31  I.  2  22  23  5  s  20  etc. ;  and  Jesus 
himself  makes  no  higher  claim  3  35  36  5  23  19  7.  *'  The 
only  begotten  Son,"  an  expression  which  S.  John 
I  14 1.  4  9  and  Christ  3  16  is  both  use,  denotes  his  unique 
relation  of  love  and  privilege.     Both  terms  suppose 

5 


66  GOD 

likeness,  and  Christ's  fitness  to  reveal  God  rests  upon 
I  the  unique  acquaintance  of  the  only  begotten  Son 
with  the  Father  and  upon  his  likeness  to  him,  I  »8. 
Yet  notwithstanding  this  peculiarity  of  his  nature 
and  position,  notwithstanding  also  the  fact  that  the 
children  are  never  called  sons  (far  less  can  any 
other  be  called  t/ie  Son)  there  is  a  very  cj_qse 
analogy  between  the^osition  of  the  Son  and  of  the 
I  children.  The  word  children  denotes  privilege  I  12, 
/l.  3  I,  and  also  likeness  to  God  I.  3  2.  Still  more 
'  clearly  does  the  act  of  begetting  imply  likeness  in  the 
children,  as  well  as  in  the  unique  Son :  "  That  which 
is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit"  38;  "  If  ye  know  that 
he  is  righteous,  ye  know  that  every  one  also  that 
doeth  righteousness  is  begotten  of  him "  I.  2  29 ; 
"  Every  one  that  loveth  is  begotten  of  God  "47;  in 
I.  3  9  it  is  expressly  the  "  seed  "  of  God  which  works 
conformity  to  his  Hkeness,  **  Whosoever  is  begotten 
of  God  doeth  no  sin,  because  his  seed  abideth  in  him, 
and  he  cannot  sin,  because  he  is_be^otten  of  God." 
The  analogy  is  brought  out  still  more  strongly  in 
I.  5  «,  where  both  are  spoken  of  under  the  same  term, 
"  Whosoever  belicveth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  is 
begotten  of  God :  and  whosoever  loveth  him  that 
begat  loveth  him  also  that  is  begotten  of  him,"  and 
in  I.  518,  "We  know  that  whosoever  is  begotten 
(^e'yevifr^^evo^i)  of  God  sinneth  not;  but  that  he  that 
was  begotten  {'yevvr^Oek)  of  God,"  Jesus,  *'  keepeth 
him." 

This  conception  is  founded  in  the  idea  of  God 
as  the  source  of  all  life,  and  is  therefore  intimately 
connected  with  S.  John's  idea  of  eternal  life  as  the 
pre-eminent  gift  of  God  in  Christ     That  God  is  life, 


THE  FATHER 


67 


is  with  S.  John  —  although  it  is  not  expressed  in 
the  same  way  —  an  idea  co-ordinate  with,  "God  is 
God  the  Source  We,"  ''God  is  light,"  and  "the  true 
of  Life  God."    The  idea  of  the  divine  Fatherhood 

is  compounded  of  the  two  ideas,  life  and  love:  the 
true  God  is  also  eternal  life  I.  5  20.  We  have  to  note 
again  that  in  connection  with  God's  Fatherhood  S. 
John  is  not  thinking  of  life  in  the  earthly  sense,  but 
always  in  the  profound  significance  which  he  attaches 
to  eternal  hfe.  In  this  sense  God  alone  is  the  source 
of  life,  "  the  Father  has  Hfe  in  himself,  and  to  the 
Son  he  gave  to  have  life  in  himself"  5  26.  Thus  the 
Son  becomes  the  medium  of  life  for  men  i  6  57,  and 
he  it  is  in  a  sense  who  constitutes  them  the  children 
of  God  I  12,  Christ  is  therefore  himself  "  the  life  " 
II  25  146;  he  is  "the  bread  of  Hfe"  63s;  and  apart 
from  him  there  is  no  life  possible  for  men  I.  5  n  12. 

The  idea  of  the  new  birth  is  not  pecuHar  to  S. 
John  (compare  iraXivyeveaia^  Tit.  3  5  and  dvar^i'ja-a'^; 
I.  Peter  i  3  23)  ;  but  the  connection  of  this  idea  with 
that  of  the  divine  Fatherhood,  the  welding  of  three 
several  ideas  into  one  chain  —  the  Father,  begetting, 
life  —  is  altogether  his  own.  When  we  come  however 
to  consider  the  ethical  relation  involved  in  father- 
hood, it  is  not  at  first  so  obvious  in  what  respect  S. 
John  has  exceeded  even  the  Jewish  standpoint.  It 
is  true  that  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  it  was 
The  Father  of  the  ^^^V  ^^^  ^^^^^  heights  of  psalmody  and 
Nation  prophecy  which  rose  to  the  conception 

of  God  as  a  Father;  it  had  not  become  a  current 
name.  In  contemporary  Judaism  however,  as  the 
New  Testament  itself  is  sufficient  to  prove,  it  had 
already   become   a   familiar   designation   of   God,   a 


68  GOD 

common  address  in  prayer,  and  a  boast  of  Jewish 
privilege.  There  is  in  the  Synoptic  account  no  hint 
that  Christ's  common  reference  to  "your  Father" 
was  in  any  way  strange  to  Jewish  ears.  On  the  other 
hand  the  expression  "  my  Father  "  gave  the  highest 
offence,  according  to  John  5  xs ;  and  evidently  be- 
cause God  was  regarded  as  the  Father  of  the  cov- 
enant Nation  as  a  whole,  and  so  while  the  common 
address  "  Our  Father"  8  41  was  in  vogue  the  particular 
claim  was  disallowed.  In  the  Synoptic  accounts  it 
seems  as  if  Christ  were  constantly  bent  upon  bring- 
ing home  to  his  disciples  the  Father's  individual 
relationship  to  them  and  care  for  them.  This  same 
purpose  is  accomplished  also  according  to  S.  John's 
narrative,  but  in  a  widely  different  way.  S.  John,  so 
far  from  particularising  the  relationship,  seems  to 
generalise  it ;  his  phrase  is  *'  the  Father,"  never  "  our 
Father,"  and  but  once  '*  your  Father."  This  phrase 
however  does  not  denote  a  fatherhood  of  wider 
range ;  it  is  not  the  Father  and  mankind,  but  "  the 
Father  and  the  Son"  "  the  Father "  equals  *'  my 
Father."  In  S.  John's  Epistle  particularly  *'  the 
Father"  appears  as  a  set  theological  designation  of 
God  in  distinction  from  "  the  Son,"  and  the  name  is 
used  with  the  same  significance  even  in  the  speeches 
of  Christ  in  the  Gospel.  That  it  was  so  used  by 
Christ  is  by  no  means  impossible  (it  was  not  a  late 
theological  development,  it  is  not  only  the  terminol- 
ogy of  S.  Paul,  but  of  the  strictly  Jewish-Christian 
circle.  Acts  2  33  Jas.  i  27  3  9)  ;  but  it  is  impossible  to 
suppose  that  he  confined  himself  to  this  strict  use, 
that  he  did  not  commonly  use  also  the  familiar 
Synoptic  phrases  "  your  Father  "  and  '*  our  Father." 


THE  FATHER  69 

S.  John's  own  peculiar  mode  of  representation  is, 
however,  excellently  designed  to  display  Christ's 
method  of  bringing  home  to  his  disciples  the  in- 
timacy of  God's  relation  as  Father.  Just  as  the 
The  Father  and  significance  of  the  P'ather  as  the  be- 
theson  getter    of  life   is   seen   primarily  in  his 

relation  to  the  only  begotten  Son  ;  so  too  the  Father's 
ethical  relation  to  the  children  is  interpreted  in  terms 
of  his  loving  relation  to  the  Son.  The  constant  rep- 
resentation of  S.  John's  Gospel  is  to  the  effect  that 
Jesus  did  not  speak  in  the  terms  of  popular  usage  of 
the  Fatherhood  of  God  as  a  relation  common  to 
himself  and  his  disciples;  but  that  he  appropriated 
it  peculiarly  to  himself,  and  thereby  immeasurably 
exalted  the  intimacy  and  the  reality  of  the  concep- 
tion. When  he  speaks  of  the  Father  it  is  almost 
always  in  relation  to  himself  and  in  a  way  which  is 
practically  equivalent  to  my  Father.  He  emphasises 
his  unique  knowledge  of  the  Father  646  (compare 
Luke  10"),  and  the  Father's  unique  love  toward 
him  335520  1724.  This  relationship  is  so  close  that 
he  can  say  "  I  and  the  Father  are  one  "  10  3°,  "  I  am 
in  the  Father  and  the  Father  in  me"  14",  and  he  is 
in  such  sense  the  medium  between  the  Father  and 
the  children,  that  God's  love  to  men  is  conditioned 
by  their  love  to  Christ  i4»o-23. 

The  significance  of  this  strictly  consistent  usage  of 
S.  John  lies  in  this,  that  having  so  deepened  the  idea 
of  the  Father  as  the  most  intimate  and  personal 
relationship  of  love,  he  all  at  once  in  his  last  hour  of 
communion  with  his  own  transfers  to  them  the  fulness 
The  Father  and  of  this  divine  paternity,  in  the  saying: 
thechudren        ''My  Father  a7td  your   Father''   20 '7. 


70  GOD 

In  his  high-pricstly  prayer  he  says,  **  that  the  love 
wherewith  thou  lovest  me  may  be  in  them"  1726. 
Having  brought  his  disciples  into  this  relationship  of 
children  to  the  Father,  he  has  brought  them  so  close, 
he  has  established  a  relationship  so  real,  that  his 
own  mediatorial  position  is  in  a  sense  superseded ; 
for  though  the  disciples  are  instructed  to  pray  in  his 
name  1624,  he  nevertheless  adds,  *' I  say  not  unto 
you  that  I  will  pray  the  Father  for  you ;  for  the 
Father  himself  loveth  you"  162627.  Though  our 
union  with  the  Father  is  mediated  by  the  Son,  ("  I 
in  them  and  thou  in  me"  1723  1420)  it  is  not  on  that 
account  less  real  and  close;  for  S.  John  speaks  in 
his  Epistle  of  *'  our  fellowship  with  the  Father  and 
with  his  Son  Jesus  Christ  "  i  3  as  co-ordinate  relations. 
We  "  abide  in  the  Son  and  in  the  Father  "  I.  2  24,  for 
with  S.  John  the  one  includes  the  other,  and  we  see 
again  the  significance  of  his  loose  employment  of  the 
personal  pronouns,  when  he  says,  "  hereby  know  we 
that  we  are  in  him  "  I.  2  5.  The  Father  has  displayed 
his  active  interest  by  the  fact  that  he  '*  hath  sent  the 
Son,  the  Saviour  of  the  world"  I.  414;  and  he  it  is 
who  also  sends  the  Spirit  of  truth  as  "  another  Com- 
forter "  14 16  26  who  like  Christ  abides  in  us  14 17. 
I  It  is  very  clear  that  the  more  richly  the  idea  of  God's 
/Fatherhood  is  developed,  so  much  the  more  Impossible 
•  is  it  to  think  of  it  in  relation  to  the  world  in  general. 
At  any  rate  in  S.  John's  doctrine  of  the  Father,  as 
defined  by  the  whole  range  of  ideas  with  which  it  is 
associated,  the  relation  is  limited  to  those  whom 
F  Christ  has  chosen  out  of  the  world  15  19.  It  is  evident 
that  the  chain  of  ideas  which  with  S.  John  constitute 
one  side  of  the  divine  Fatherhood  (the  particular  act 


THE   FATHER  7 1 

of  begetting,  the  new  birth,  and  eternal  life)  were  not  / 
realised   in  the  case   of  all  men.     Even  "  his  own  "  ' 
(the  nation  which  boasted  that  God  was  their  Father 
841)    received   Christ  not  i  ",  thereby   proving  that 
they   were  not  true   children   of  God  8  42 ;   "  but  as 
many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  the  right  to 
become    children    of  God  "   i  i^.     God's  Fatherhood  1 
therefore   is  no  longer   limited   to   the   Nation ;    his  I 
children  are  scattered  abroad   and   are  brought   to- 
gether into  one   community  by  Christ's  death   1 1  52. 
S.  John  is  not  unjustly  lauded  as  the  Apostle  of 
love.     A  strong  emphasis  upon  love  is  common  to 
the  New  Testament  writers,  but  S.  John  is  more  than 
all  others  insistent  upon  it,  both  as  an  attribute  of  God 
and  as  the  duty  of  man.     God's  love  is  an  attribute 
of  his  Fatherhood,  and  in  this  deeper  sense  its  sphere 
is  of  course  hmited  to  the  children :   "  Behold  what 
manner  of  love  the  Father  hath  bestowed  upon  us, 
that  we  should  be  called  children  of  God  " 
I.  3  I ;  **  Herein  was  the  love  of  God  mani- 
fested in  our  case,  that  God  hath  sent  his  only  begot- 
ten Son  into  the  world,  that  we  might  live  through 
him "    I.    4  9.     From  this  last  verse  we  sec  too  that 
God  was  revealed  as  love,  not  only  by  Christ's  loving 
service  and  sacrifice  I.  3  16 ;  but  by  the  very  sending 
of  the  only  begotten  Son  as  a  veritable  sacrifice  on 
the  part  of  the  Father ;   and  that  his  love  is  thereby 
revealed    not   as  a   complacent  affection,  but  as    an 
active  impulse. 

We  must  notice  here,  as  we  shall  have  to  do  again, 
that  notwithstanding  S.  John's  representation  of  the 
children  as  chosen  out  of  the  world,  and  of  the  world 
itself  as  wholly  evil,  wholly  opposed  to   God;    he 


72 


GOD 


J  nevertheless  regards  God's  love  and  his  purpose  of 
f  salvation  in  a  universal  aspect.  God's  relation  to 
men  as  Creator  is  wider  than  that  as  Father,  and 
as  Creator  too  he  loves  his  creatures.  God's  love 
moreover  is  not  in  the  last  resort  founded  upon  man's 
love  to  him :  "  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God, 
but  that  he  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  pro- 
pitiation for  our  sins  "  I.  4  10  19.  "  God  so  loved  the 
world,  that  he  gave  his  onlyTDegotten  Son,  that  who- 
isoever  believeth  on  him  should  not  perish,  but  have 
'eternal  life  "  3  16.  In  this  verse  we  have  the  most 
universal  expression  of  God's  love  towards  his  whole 
rational  creation.  This  love  of  God,  not  only  towards 
the  Son,  and  the  children,  but  towards  his  whole 
universe,  is  after  all  the  necessary  deduction  from  the 
principle  that  in  his  very  nature,  and  independent  of 
object,  God  is  love  I.  4  9  »6. 


II 

THE   LOGOS  WITH   GOD 

JESUS'    SELF-WITNESS 

We  have  seen  in  the  last  chapter  that  the  love 
of  God  (which  is  not  an  occasional  manifestation  of 
his  will,  but  the  constant  and  essential  attribute  of 
his  nature)  was,  in  the  broadest  sense,  directed  toward 
The  Only  Be-  the  world  ;  more  particularly,  toward  the 
gotten  Son  children  chosen  out  of  the  world  ;  and  in 
a  unique  sense,  toward  the  only  begotten  Son.  We 
have  to  observe  now  that  God's  love  was  never  with- 
out an  object ;  but  that  even  "  before  the  world  was," 
"  in  the  beginning,"  God  had  in  the  Son  the  most 
perfect  object  and  the  most  complete  reciprocation 
of  his  love.  This  is  included  in  Jesus'  self-witness, 
according  to  S.  John,  and  constitutes  one  of  the  most 
notable  traits  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  Upon  the  pre- 
dominance of  Jesus'  self-witness  in  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
and  upon  its  relation  to  the  aim  of  the  author,  we 
have  already  commented  (pages  25-27).  We  have 
here  to  study  the  precise  content  of  his  claim  in  so  far 
as  concerns  his  relation  to  God.  Je^ji'..^m'/_ witness 
is  expressed  in  terms.  ol-Sonship:  S.John's  doctrine 
ofjesus^erson  is  most  characteristically  formulated 
in  connection  with  the  term  Logos.  With  all  that  we 
have  already  observed  of  S.  John's  assimilation  of 
Jesus'  speeches  to  the  peculiarities  of  his  own  diction, 


74  '^^iiE  LOGOS    WITH  GOD 

it  is  notable  in  this  instance  to  what  extent  he  dis- 
tinguishes the  form  and  content  of  Jesus'  self-witness 
from  his  own  dogmatic  deductions.  Not  only  does  he 
never  attribute  the  use  of  the  term  Logos  to  Jesus ;  but 
in  his  own  pronouncements  in  the  Prologue  and  in 
the  Epistle  he  associates  both  with  the  Logos  and  with 
the  Son  ideas  which  advance  beyond  the  explicit  terms 
of  Jesus'  self-witness.  The  distinction  is  so  clear  that 
some  even  base  upon  it  the  claim  of  a  difference  of 
authorship  as  between  the  Prologue  and  the  rest  of 
the  Gospel.  It  is  however  only  by  minimising  the 
significance  of  Jesus'  claim  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  and 
by  extravagantly  embellishing  S.  John's  doctrine  of 
the  Logos,  that  any  incongruity  can  be  proved.  The 
fact  is  rather  calculated  to  enhance  our  estimation  of 
the  historicity  of  the  account ;  for  it  shows  that  the 
author  was  conscious  of  a  distinction  between  what  he 

Ihad  learned  directly  from  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and 
what  he  had  gained  through  meditation  upon  the 
things  which  he  had  seen  and  heard,  and  that  he  was 
not  disposed  to  obscure  that  distinction  in  any  essential 
part  of  his  representation. 

.  The  inquiry  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  expression 
I  the  Son_Qf  God  "  is  commonly  embarrassed  by  the 
prepossession  that  it  must  have  but  one  definite 
significance.  The  fact  is  rather  that  with  S.  John 
it  must,  almost  as  a  matter  of  course,  be  susceptible 
of  many  meanings.  Here  too  we  have  to  deal  with  a 
term  which. was  of  cardinal  importance  in  Jesus'  own 
teaching;  and  we  might  reasonably  expect  to  find 
his  paedagogical  method  illustrated  here  as  it  is  else- 
where by  the  use  of  a  term  capable  of  ascending 
significance.     Jesus  adopted  the    name,  kingdom    of 


JESUS'  SELF-WITNESS  75 

God,  not  because  in  its  familiar  connotation  it  actually 
conveyed  to  the  people  his  idea,  but  because  it  was 
capable  of  expressing  it.     The  confession  that  Jesus  is 
the  Christ  meant  one  thing  in  the  early  days  of  his 
ministry,    and    doubtless   quite   another   and    higher 
thing  after  his  resurrection.     He  was  accustomed,  as 
a  method  of  teaching,  to  seize  upon   an  expression 
which  was  current  in  a  lower  significance,  and  raise 
it  to  its  highest  terms.     This  paidagogical  principle  is 
peculiarly  clear  in  the  use  of  the  word  Son ;    for  it 
was  more   obviously  a  matter  of  choice,  not  forced 
upon    him    as   a   necessary   element   of  the    current 
Messianic  terminology;   and  in  the  second  place,  not  / 
being  an  arbitrary  expression  but  a  natural  analogy,  ■ 
it  was  peculiarly  apt  for  the  purpose  of  raising  the 
disciples   from   a  lower,  through   a  whole    range    of 
ascending   significations,   to  the   highest  conception. 
We    have    already   seen    how   Jesus    enhanced   and 
enriched  the  word  Father ;   we  have  an  exact  parallel 
in    his   use   of  the  word  Son.     S.  John  was  prompt 
to   appreciate    a   method  of  teaching  which  was  so 
thoroughly  in  harmony  with  his  own  type  of  thought ; 
and,  although  it   is  sometimes  asserted  that  he  does 
not  note   as  the  Synoptists  do  a  progression  in  the 
self-witness  of  Jesus,  it  is  rather  true,  if  we  attend  to 
this   peculiarity,    that  he   marks    more    clearly  than 
others  the  progress  of  the  disciples'  appreciation  of 
the    significance  of  Jesus*   claim.     There    is,  corres- 
ponding to  the  ^rogr^ssjof  Jesus'  ministry,  i^^certain 
advance  m  the  n^tu^re^ii^L^dearness  of  his_ claim ; 
and    though   this    is   less    formally   marked    in     the 
Fourth     Gospel    than     elsewhere,    it    is    the    r\)urth 
Gospel    pre-eminently    which    furnishes    the    clue   to 


76  THE  LOGOS   WITH  GOD 

the  progress  and  culmination  of  the  Messianic  con- 
troversy to  which  Jesus'  appearance  gave  rise ;  — 
which  reveals  at  each  stage  the  new  estimation  (on 
the  part  of  those  who  reject  him  as  well  as  of  those 
who  receive)  of  Jesus'  claim,  which  in  itself  remains 
constant  in  the  assertion  of  his  divine  Sonship.  The 
expression  "  Son  of  God  "  is  therefore  with  S.  John 
n^t  a  constant  quantity,  bu^an  ascending  scale,  it 
runs  through  the  whole  gamut,  from  the  expression 
of  a  relation  which  every  Israelite -might  claim  lo  35  36, 
(Ps.  82  6),  up  to  the  definite  note  of  divinity  I.  52021. 
From  this  point  of  view  there  is  really  no  difficulty  in 
understanding  S.  John's  use  of  this  term ;  for  there 
is  no  longer  any  necessity  of  paring  down  the  highest 
and  most  definite  expressions  to  match  the  simplest 
use. 

We  shall  find  that  the  notion  of  Christ's  Sonship 
gains  a  special  significance  from  its  connection  with 
the  peculiar  elements  of  Johannine  thought,  but  in  the 
name  itself  there  is  of  course  nothing  peculiar  to 
S.  John.  It  is  used  also  by  the  Synoptists,  but  with 
this  difference,  th^t  whereas  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  it 
represents  Christ's  constant  claim  from  the  beginning, 
in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  it  appears  as  the  witness 
which  the  most  striking  aspects  of  his  manifestation 
extort  from  his  disciples,  and  as  the  culmination  of 
his  self-witness  in  the  very  end  of  his  ministry.  With 
the  Synoptists  '*  the  Son  of  man_"  is  the  predomi- 
nating expression,  and  serves  as  a  transition  to  the 
higher  name ;  with  S.  John  the  expression  "  the  Son 
of  God  "  is,  as  we  have  seen,  itself  capable  of  effect- 
ing the  transition  from  lower  to  higher,  and  **  the  Son 
of  man  "  though  used  in   much  the  same  way  has  its 


JESUS'  SELF-WITNESS  77 

own  peculiar  significance  more  distinctly  marked. 
The  absolute  expression  ''  the  Son "  is  common  to 
both,  though  it  is  much  more  frequent  in  S.  John.  It 
occurs  in  fact  but  once  (exclusive  of  its  use  in  the 
parables)  in  the  Synoptic  account  Mat.  1 1  ^^  (Luke 
10  22)  :  All  thmgs  have  been  delivered  unto  me  of  my 
Father  :  and  no  07ie  knoweth  the  So7i,  save  the  Father  ; 
neither  doth  any  know  the  Father,  save  the  Son,  and  he 
to  whomsoever  the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  him.  This 
single  utterance  however  corresponds  so  precisely  in 
form  and  substance  to  the  more  frequent  expressions 
concerning  the  Son  and  the  Father  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  646  10  15  that  we  cannot  fail  to  see  in  it  a  hint 
of  a  more  common  use  of  "the  Son  of  God"  and 
"  the  Son  "  than  the  Synoptists  have  expressly  re- 
corded. 

It  was  probably  an  advantage  of  the  term,  Son  of 
God,  that  it  had  no  such  current  use  in  the  Old  Testa- 
Divinity  of  the  "^^^^  ^^  would  definitely  fix  its  meaning. 
Son  It  is  applied  to  the  Children  ^f  Israel  as  l 

the  highest  expression  of  their  relation  to  GTod,  and  1 
more  particularly  to  IsraeLs^  theacratic  king.     It  is  ( 
doubtless   in   no  higher  sense  that,   in  the  Book  of 
Enoch  and  in  the  Fourth  Book  of  Esdras,   God  is  | 
represented    as    calling   the    Messiah   his    Son.     We 
have  besides  this  no  other  information  except   that 
derived    from   the   New   Testament    concerning   the 
relation   of  this  term  to  the  Messianic  idea.     From 
the  Gospels   we    gather  that  the  term  was  actually 
associated  with  the  Messianic  hope,  and  that  Jesus 
could    not    call     himself  the    Son    of  God    without 
suggesting   a   Messianic   claim.      We    see     however 
that    the    emphasis   with   which    he   employed    the 


78  THE  LOGOS   WITH  GOD 

name  suggested  a  significance  much  higher  than  was 
popularly  accorded  to  the  Messiah  1033.  The  Old 
Testament  uses  the  term  *'  begotten  "  as  a  metaphor 
in  connection  with  the  divine  Sonship  Ps.  2  7 ;  but 
we  have  already  seen  that  S.  John  uses  the  idea 
of  begetting  in  a  real  sense,  as  an  analogy,  even  in 
connection  with  the  Children  of  God,  and  we  might 
expect  that  as  the  Father's  love  was  shown  in  an 
altogether  unique  way  towards  the  Son,  so  the  idea 
of  begetting  in  reference  to  him  would  have  a  value 
absolutely  siii  generis.  The  expression  "  only  be- 
gotten Son,"  which  is  peculiar  to  S.  John,  regresents 
primarily  the  relation  pX. tender  love;  but  it  can 
hardly  fail  to  have  also  with  S.  John  the  significance 
of  real  derivation  from  the  divine  nature  I.  5  i.  The 
children  also  were  begotten ;  but  if  the  relation  of 
the  Son  to  the  Father  were  upon  the  same  plane  as 
that  of  the  children,  we  should  expect  him  to  be 
called,  as  by  S.  Paul,  "  the  first  begotten  among 
many  brethren"  Rom.  829  —  see  Rev.  i  5.  Instead 
of  that  he  occupies  an  absolutely  singular  relation  to 
God  as  the  07ily  begotten  Son.  S.  John  still  further 
heightens  the  distinction  of  Christ's  position  by  re- 
fraining from  the  use  of  the  expression  sons  (ylo'C)  of 
God  in  relation  to  men,  and  by  substituting  for  it  the 
word  children  (re/cj/a).  It  must  be  affirmed  that  the 
ethical  relation  which  is  everywhere  prominent  in 
the  expression  which  we  are  studying  rather  suggests 
than  excludes  a  substantial  relation.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  in  the  Epistles  *'  the  Son "  denotes  a 
nature  more  closely  allied  to  God  than  to  man.  The 
constant  conjunction  of  the  Son  and  the  Father  is  of 
itself  sufficient  to  establish  S.  John's  doctrine  on  this 


JESUS'  SELF-IVITjYESS  79 

subject.  It  may  even  be  asserted  that  there  is  noth- 
ing in  S.  John's  Epistle  to  suggest  any  discrepancy 
between  his  employment  of  the  names  Father  and 
Son,  and  their  significance  in  the  Trinitarian  formula. 
The  believer's  relation  to  the  Father  and  to  the  Son 
is  expressed  in  the  same  terms  I.  2  22-24,  and  the  last 
verse  but  one  of  the  Epistle  includes  both  *'  him  that 
is  true,  and  his  Son  Jesus  Christ "  in  the  affirmation, 
**  This  is  the  true  God  and  everlasting  life."  There 
is  also  no  doubt  that  ''  the  only  begotten  Son  "  of  the 
Prologue  is  substantially  equivalent  to  "  the  Logos," 
and  it  therefore  makes  no  difference  whether  verse  14 
is  to  be  translated  "  as  an  only  begotten,"  or  "  as  the 
only  begotten  ;  "  —  in  either  case  he  shares  the  divine 
*'  glory."  Jesus'  self-witness  can  hardly  be  said  to 
fall  short  of  this,  though  it  may  perhaps  be  more 
justly  said  to  lead  up  to  it.  He  too  calls  himself  the 
only  begotten  Son  3  '6  is ;  he  is  the  Son,  and  he  uses 
this  name  in  the  same  significant  association  with  the 
Father  as  it  is  used  in  the  Epistle.  When  he  said 
"  my  Father  worketh  even  until  now,  and  I  work," 
he  so  associated  himself  with  the  Father  as  to  justify 
the  claim  of  the  Jews  that  in  calling  "  God  his  own 
Father"  he  was  ** making  himself  equal  with  God" 
5  17 18.  In  8  54  he  discriminates  his  own  position  very 
sharply  from  that  of  the  Jews  in  the  contrast  *'  my 
Father — your  God."  Again  Christ's  claim  to  be 
Son  of  God  was  accounted  by  the  Jews  to  be  equiva- 
lent to,  **  That  thou  being  a  man,  makest  th)'self 
God  "  ;  and  although  Jesus  shov/s  how  a  lower  mean- 
ing might  be  attached  to  the  term  Son  of  God,  it 
cannot  be  supposed  to  be  S.  John's  intention  to 
represent  him  as  disclaiming  the  higher  significance 


80  THE  LOGOS    WITH  GOD 

10  33-36.  Still  again,  before  Pilate,  it  is  charged  against 
him  as  the  sin  of  blasphemy  that  he  "  made  himself 
the  Son  of  God"  19  17.  This  identification  with  God, 
though  it  was  not  necessarily  included  in  the  name  Son, 
was  plainly  enough  expressed  in  Jesus'  self-witness. 
What  the  Father  doeth,  that  doeth  the  Son;  as  the 
Father  quickeneth,  so  the  Son  quickeneth  whom  he 
will ;  like  the  Father,  the  Son  also  has  life  in  himself; 
and  men  must  honour  the  Son  even  as  they  honour  the 
Father  5  19-26.  He  claims  that  "  all  things  which  the 
Father  hath  are  mine  "  16  ^s ;  "  He  that  hath  seen  me 
hath  seen  the  Father"  14 19;  he  says  "Believe  in 
God,  believe  also  in  me  "  14  i ;  he  demands  for  him- 
self the  same  sort  of  belief,  ''that  I  am  "  8  24 ;  he  iden- 
tifies himself  with  the  Father  in  a  very  remarkable 
way  when  he  says,  "  we  will  come  unto  him  and  make 
our  abode  with  him  "  1423.  It  is  in  the  light  of  such 
testimony  we  must  read  the  claim,  '*  I  and  the  Father 
are  one"  10  30,  and  **  I  am  in  the  Father  and  the 
Father  in  me"  14";  and  not  reduce  it  to  the 
dimensions  of  the  similar  expressions  which  denote 
the  relation  of  believers  to  God. 

When  on  the  other  hand  Jesus  says,  "  My  Father  is 
greater  than  I"  1428;  when  he  represents  his  powers 
52636,  his  doctrine  828,  and  his  mission  434  5  as 
derived  from  the  Father;  there  is  nothing  to  hint  at 
any  difference  other  than  that  which  is  assumed  in 
the  relation  of  Sonship  and  Fatherhood. 

Jesus'  self-witness  was  given  like  God's  revelation 
of  old  time  in  divers  portions  and  in  divers  manners. 
He  did  not  straightway  announce  his  highest  claims; 
he  strove  to  lead  men  up  to  the  loftiest  appreciation 
of  his  person.     He  did  not  even  at  the  end  sum  up 


JESUS'  SELF-WITNESS  8 1 

the  divers  elements  of  his  self-witness  in  a  single 
adequate  statement ;  for  even  at  the  end  he  had  many 
things  to  say  to  the  disciples  which  they  could  not 
bear  till  after  the  resurrection.  In  particular  he  did 
not  make  the  express  claim  that  he  was  God ;  he 
doubtless  could  not  have  done  so  without  thereby 
putting  a  fatal  stumbling-block  in  the  way  of  the 
disciples'  growing  faith  20  2R.  But  if  we  sum  up  the 
details  of  Jesus'  testimony  about  himself,  without 
the  least  sophistication  of  exegesis,  the  total  impres- 
sion can  hardly  be  other  than  this :  that  he  had  the 
consciousness  and  made  the  claim  of  being  of  the 
same  nature  as  God.  If  we  cannot  suppose  that 
S.  John  appreciated  the  metaphysical  analysis  which 
is  presupposed  in  the  expression  "the  same  sub- 
stance "  in  the  Nicene  Creed,  we  can  surely  express 
his  conception  of  Jesus*  witness,  by  saying  that  he  in 
contrast  with  men  was  of  the  same  kind  as  God. 

Still  another  question  arises,  whether  Jesus  ex- 
pressed the  fact  of  his  pre-existence,  or  left  it  to 
Pre-ezistence  be  inferred  from  his  general  claim  of 
of  the  Son  divinity.     The  fact  is  however  that  Jesus' 

consciousness  of  pre-existence  is  so  clearly  expressed 
in  the  Fourth  Gospel  that  one  wonders  how  it 
can  be  called  in  question.  It  is  not  proved  by 
the  frequent  expressions  which  represent  him  as 
"sent"  or  even  "sent  into  the  world;  "  for  such  ex- 
pressions are  used  of  John  the  Baptist  and  others. 
Nor  is  it  indubitably  expressed  in  the  claim  of  learn- 
ing from  the  Father,  of  doing  and  saying  what  he  has 
seen  and  heard  with  him ;  for  this  might  conceivably 
be  the  result  of  inspiration  and  of  inspired  vision. 
There  are  other  expressions  too  which  denote  deri- 

6     * 


82  THE  LOGOS    WITH  GOD 

vation  fr-T^m  GoH,  hm  not  pre-e\istence  :  —  "I  came 
forth  and  am  conic  \^■(^\^^  <  ioH  "  %  ^■-  c\.  i  7  ^  We  might 
certainlv  icly  with  great  conridencc  \\\\<a\  the  many 
expressions  which  represent  him  as  coming  down  from 
heaven  331  633  38  4i42  5»;  but  this  is  still  further  de- 
fined by  statements  which  would  seem  to  admit  of 
no  possibility  of  misunderstanding.  He  speaks  of"  the 
Son  of  man  ascending  where  he  was  before  "  6  62 ;  he 
says  "  I  came  out  from  the  Father,  and  am  come  into 
the  world ;  again  I  leave  the  world,  and  go  unto  the 
Father"  1628.  In  his  great  prayer  he  says,  '*  for  thou 
lovedst  me  before  the  foundation  of  the  world"  1724; 
and  he  speaks  of  "  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee 
before  the  world  was  "  175.  In  the  light  of  this  clear 
witness,  we  can  read  the  significance  even  of  those 
statements  which  we  have  but  just  now  set  aside  as 
insufficient  of  themselves  to  denote  Christ's  heavenly 
origin.  But  Jesus'  testimony  does  not  end  here,  with 
the  claim  of  relative  pre-existence.  He  demands 
belief  in  himself  as  the  absolute  existence  :  "  Believe 
that  I  am''  824;  "Before  Abraham  was  I  am''  Ssq. 
It  is  impossible  to  interpret  this  strange  saying,  with- 
out connecting  it  (cf.  Rev.  i  4  etc.)  with  the  solemn 
proclamation  of  God's  name  I  AM  recorded  in  Ex. 
3  14.  In  this  reference  we  see  the  full  significance  of 
Jesus'  claim. 

S.    JOHN'S    DOCTRINE    OF   THE    LOGOS 

The  foregoing  discussion  has  been  limited  to  the 
proof  of  two  propositions :  that  the  self-witness  of 
Jesus  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  expresses  a  consciousness 
of  prc-cxistcncc,  and  leads  up  to  the  statement  of  his 


S.  JOHN'S  DOCTRINE    OF   THE   LOGOS  83 

s.  John's  Own  ■di^'inity  20-^3.  h  has  thereby  omitted 
£?tiaiftte«»f  \-cr\'  man\  items  of  fesiis'  claim,  some 
oven  which  are  germane  to  the  topic 
and  others  which  are  more  properly  discussed  in 
relation  to  his  Messianic  mission  in  the  world.  So 
predominant  is  Jesus'  self-witness  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  and  so  rich  is  its  content,  that  a  full  and 
detailed  discussion  of  it  is  incompatible  with  either 
the  brevity  or  clearness  of  the  exposition  we  have  in 
hand.  Most  of  Jesus'  utterances,  and  most  of  the 
pragmatic  situations  of  the  Gospel,  bear  on  this 
point;  for  it  was  in  this  interest  (pp.  26  seq.)  that 
the  Gospel  was  composed. 

That  which  S.  John  represents  as  Jesus'  express 
teaching  cannot  however  be  studied  apart  from  his 
own  estimation  of  Jesus'  Person.  We  see  even  in 
the  Fourth  Gospel  how  S.  John,  like  the  rest  of  the 
Apostles,  beginning  with  the  Baptist's  witness  to  the 
Lamb  of  God  1 36,  quickly  rose  from  the  mere  respect 
due  to  Jesus  3.^  Rabbi  1 38  to  an  appreciation  of  him  as 
the  Messiah  i  41.  But  S.  John's  Gospel  is  not  so  well 
designed  to  display  the  origination  and  development 
of  his  faith,  as  it  is  to  express  his  ultimate  conclusion. 
And  although  the  confession,  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ, 
was  doubtless  raised  to  a  much  higher  significance 
than  he  at  first  accorded  it ;  although  it  is  included 
in  his  statement  of  the  aim  of  his  Gospel  (*'  That  ye 
might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God"  20 3'),  and  remains  to  the  last  the  orthodox 
confession  of  faith ;  the  name  itself  was  not  capable 
of  expressing  S.  John's  highest  conception  of  what 
Jesus  was  in  himself  and  in  his  relation  to  God.  The 
name  Son  of  God  on  the  other  hand,  as  we  saw  inci- 


84  THE  LOGOS    WITH  GOD 

dentally  under  the  preceding  topic,  proved  itself 
adequate  at  every  stage  for  the  expression  of  the  new 
meaning  with  which  it  was  associated.  We  have  seen 
also  that  there  is  a  difference  to  be  noted  between  the 
self-witness  of  Jesus  according  to  the  Fourth  Gospel 
and  S.  John's  own  utterances  about  him ;  though  the 
trend  qf  the  foregoing  discussion  has  been  to  show  how 
slight  after  all  the  difference  is.  The  historical  mani- 
festation  of  Jesus  as  interpreted  by  his  self-witness  in 
word  and  work  was  not  only  the  foundation  and  start- 
ing-point of  S.  John's  belief,  but  in  the  main  covers 
it,  and  coincides  with  it,  even  in  the  form  of  expres- 
sion. Beyond  this  however  S.  John  does  advance; 
and  by  sinking  himself  deeper  and  deeper  in  the  con- 
templation of  the  eternal  divine  existence  of  the  Son 
he  reaches  a  standpoint  which  was  possible  only  in 
the  light  of  Christ's  resurrection,  and  which  he  is 
scrupulous  to  distinguish,  in  some  respects  at  least, 
from  Jesus'  own  testimony.  This  developed  point  of 
view  he  presents  not  at  the  end  of  his  Gospel,  like 
S.  Thomas'  confession  "  My  Lord  and  my  God,'' 
which  was  the  culminating  expression  of  the  disciples* 
faith  after  the  Resurrection ;  but  at  the  very  begin- 
ning, and  as  the  standpoint  from  which  the  whole 
earthly  history  of  Christ  must  be  regarded. 

This  advance  which  S.  John  makes  beyond  the  ex- 
press testimony  of  Christ,  and  this  manner  of  treating 
history,  arc  commonly  described  as  speculative.  This 
s.  joim's  Use  of  word,  although  we  cannot  strictly  refuse  to 
tiie  Term  Logos  ^dmit  it.  Suggests  almost  inevitably  an 
erroneous  idea  of  S.  John's  method.  S.  John's  specu- 
lation (pp.  38  scq?),  if  it  may  be  so  called,  is  at  all 
events  not  of  the  dialectical  sort  which  advances  by  a 


S.  JOHN'S  DOCTRINE    OF   THE   LOGOS  85 

chain  of  reasoning  from  one  proposition  to  another ; 
it  does  not  start  with  an  a  priori  thesis  (as  it  is 
assumed  to  do  in  the  so-called  doctrine  of  the  Logos) 
and  work  out  a  rational  system :  but  it  starts  with 
given  fact  which  it  is  intent  upon  understanding  in 
its  relations  and  in  its  deepest  nature.  S.  John  is 
interested  not  in  pursuing  deductions  from,  but  in 
seizing  and  expressing  the  very  nature  of,  the  object 
of  his  contemplation ;  and  hence  it  is  that  a  name  be- 
comes not  his  starting-point,  but  his  goal.  A  name 
has  with  S.  John  the  same  deep  significance  which  is 
accorded  it  in  all  Semitic  thought.  It  is  not  a  ful- 
crum for  argument,  a  premise  suggesting  further 
conclusions  ;  but  a  finished  product,  a  minted  coin,  the 
significance  of  which  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  already  per- 
fectly expresses  the  nature  of  the  object  which  it 
names.  It  is  precisely  this  value  that  the  name  Word 
has  for  S.  John,  and  the  degree  of  importance  which 
he  attached  to  it  is  to  be  seen  not  so  much  in  the 
Prologue  and  in  the  Epistle,  as  in  Rev.  19  13  "  His 
name  is  called  the  Word  of  God''  (cf.  verse  12). 
Nothing  could  be  more  unreasonable  than  the  assertion 
that  Philo's  philosophy  of  the  Logos  furnished  S.  John 
with  an  entirely  new  conception  of  Christianity.  His 
sober  and  restrained  use  of  the  term  is  of  itself 
enough  to  refute  such  a  claim.  It  is  a  pure  assump- 
tion which  on  the  mere  pretext  of  this  name  foists 
upon  S.  John  a  cosmological  philosophy  of  emanations 
which  is  not  borne  out  by  any  of  the  affirmations 
which  he  actually  makes  about  the  Logos.  Neither 
can  it  be  proved  that  his  use  of  this  name  has  any 
point  of  contact  with  the  contemporary  rabbinical 
personification    of  the   Word    and    Wisdom,    which 


86  THE   LOGOS   V/ITH  GOD 

5eem>  ?lso  to  h<-  a  product  (^i  the  rurrent  philosophy 
<>{  etnanatioiis.  It  remains  iil  the  most  y  possibility 
that  tlie  naaie  Logos  whs  fymiliar  in  some  such  sense 
to  S.  John  and  to  the  circle  for  whom  he  wrote,  and 
that  his  adoption  of  it  was  thereby  suggested  and 
facilitated.  Btit  the  actual  content  of  his  idea  is 
drawn  exclusively  from  the  Old  Testament;  and  in- 
asmuch as  this  is  an  adequate  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  the  term,  any  other  is  superfluous.  More- 
over S.  John's  doctrine  of  the  Word  is  wrought  out 
so  characteristically,  and  correlated  so  closely  with 
his  ideas  of  light  and  life,  as  to  suggest  that,  even  if 
we  were  to  consider  it  a  highly  speculative  system,  we 
must  consider  it  a  system  original  with  S.  John. 

The  truth  is,  the  common  opinion  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding,  that  S.  John's  idea  of  the  Logos  is 
not  a  thing  deeply  mysterious  and  unintelligible  ;   but 

one  which,  both  in  its  origin  and  meaning, 
The  Motive  of       ,  .  i-     i        i  at    -i-t.        •     -i.  • 

s.  John's  Choice  IS  quite  peculiarly  clear.     Neither  is  it  in 

of  the  Term  ^^y  ^yj^g  ^-^g  j^^y,  but  the  incidental  pro- 
duct of  his  system  of  thought.  This  being 
the  case  we  shall  see  more  clearly  as  we  advance  in 
the  study  of  S.  John  how  precisely  this  word  was 
adapted  to  his  thought.  But  we  have  already  seen 
enough  of  the  general  characteristics  of  his  thought 
to  enable  us  to  appreciate  at  this  point  the  motive 
of  his  choice. 

We  are  puzzled  at  first  to  account  for  the  necessity 
for  any  name  higher  than  that  of  Son  to  express 
Jesus'  divine  nature  and  relationship.  We  have 
studied  the  exalted  significance  which  S.  John  attaches 
to  this  name.  His  affirmation  in  regard  to  the  Son 
rises  to  a  supreme  height  when  at  the  conclusion  of 


S.  JOHN'S  DOCTRINE   OF   THE   LOGOS  8/ 

the  Epistle  he  says.  "  This  is  thr  Trur  God  ;^nd  e^■er- 
lasting  r.-itc."  Still  riiorr  sio^nihcwni  would  br  tjic 
assertion  of  i  i^,  it  wr  tna\-  accept  a  strongly  supported 
text  —  "the  only  begotten  Gody  This  expression 
retains  the  idea  of  begetting  which  is  implied  in  son- 
ship  (including  the  ideas  of  origin,  of  love  and  of 
dutiful  subordination),  and  at  the  same  time  afifirms 
absolute  identity  of  nature.  Such  an  expression 
cannot  be  accounted  unnatural  to  S.  John ;  but  it  is 
obviously  ill  adapted  to  the  solution  of  the  problem 
which  confronted  him,  and  for  which  he  was  seeking 
not  so  much  an  explanation  as  a  name.  The  name 
Son  indeed  so  far  from  solving  rather  throws  into 
relief  the  problem  which  for  S.  John  and  the  Church 
of  his  age  was  substantially  the  same  as  that  which 
engaged  the  Church  during  the  three  succeeding  cen- 
turies ;  and  which  in  both  instances  was  solved  in  much 
the  same  way.  The  problem  was  this:  that  having 
risen  to  an  appreciation  of  the  Son,  as  not  only  in  a 
general  sense  divine,  but  of  the  same  kind  as  God,  ajid 
actually  God  ;  and  yet  at  the  same  time  (as  was  inevi- 
table from  the  whole  character  of  Jesus'  manifestation 
and  self-witness)  personally  distinguished  from  God  ; 
his  belief  seemed  to  be  set  in  irreconcilable  contra- 
diction to  the  fundamental  monotheism  ingrained  in 
his  race.  This  contradiction  could  not  fail  to  be  felt 
so  soon  as  his  faith  emerged  from  the  purely  practical 
sphere  into  the  light  of  reasoned  thought.  The  prob- 
lem expressed  itself  in  the  form  of  an  equation  :  The 
Father  who  is  God  plus  the  Son  who  is  God  =  one 
God.  To  a  Hebrew  who  believed  that  Jesus  was  God 
in  a  real  sense  this  was  the  problem  of  problems ;  — 
incomparably    more    pressing    than    that    of   God's 


88  THE  LOGOS    WITH  GOD 

relation  to  the  world.  And  this  was  the  problem 
which  S.  John  met  by  the  use  of  the  name  Logos. 
The  name  Son  was  unsuited  to  meet  this  precise 
difficulty,  because  its  chief  stress  lay  upon  the  idea 
of  personality,  and  so  upon  the  distinction  in  the  God- 
head. What  was  wanted  was  a  name  which  would 
designate  Jesus  according  to  his  nature,  and  in  sub- 
stantial identification,  not  only  with  God  in  the  ab- 
stract, but  with  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament.  We 
can  state  thus  precisely  the  problem  to  be  solved ; 
but  we  cannot  by  any  means  affirm  that  S.  John  could 
have  solved  it  in  only  one  way ;  nor  can  we  presume 
to  point  out  the  steps  which  necessitated  his  choice 
of  the  name  Logos ;  —  or  in  fact  of  any  solution  at  all. 
We  can  see  however  how  the  choice  was  materially 
narrowed  by  certain  important  considerations.  For 
if  it  is  actually  the  Apostle  John  with  whom  we  have 
to  deal,  nothing  is  more  sure  than  that  he  must  seek 
his  solution,  not  in  the  metaphysical  conceptions  of 
Greek  thought,  but  in  the  more  naive  forms  of  Semitic 
(particularly  Old  Testament)  representation.  In  the 
second  place,  S.  John's  predominant  interpretation  of 
salvation  in  terms  of  revelation  (the  Life  of  God 
becoming  the  Hght  of  men,  and  producing  life  in 
them)  suggests  at  least  that  this  thought  must  be 
made  prominent  also  in  his  chosen  designation  for 
Christ.  This  we  actually  see  realized  in  the  choice  of 
the  term  Logos  or  Word,  which  was  suggested,  not  by 
the  poetical  personification  of  the  Old  Testament,  but 
by  its  simplest  and  most  ordinary  employment  in  the 
formula  of  prophecy  ("  The  word  of  the  Lord  came  to 
me,")  and  in  the  creative  fiat  ("And  he  said  —  and 
it  was  so  ")  ;  —  as  the  word  of  power,  and  as  the  word 
of  revelation. 


S.  JOHN'S  DOCTRINE   OF  THE  LOGOS  89 

The  study  of  the  first  three  verses  of  the  Epistle 
serves  at  once  to  justify  the  foregoing  argument, 
Content  of  the  ^"^  ^^  introduce  us  to  the  essential  con- 
Doctrine  of  the  tent  of  S.  John's  idea  of  the  Logos. 
I.  *'  That  which  was  from  the  begvifiuig, 
that  which  we  have  heard,  that  which  we  have  seen 
with  our  eyes,  that  which  we  beheld  and  our  hands 
handled,  co7tcer7iing  the  Word  of  life  2.  (^and  the  life 
was  manifested,  and  we  have  seen,  and  bear  witness, 
and  declare  nnto  you  the  life,  the  eternal,  which  was 
with  the  Father,  a7id  was  jjianifested  unto  us)  ;  3.  that 
which  we  have  seen  and  heard  declare  we  unto  you  also, 
that  ye  also  may  have  fellowship  with  us'' 

It  is  a  matter  of  discussion  in  the  first  place  whether 
**  the  Word  of  Hfe  "  in  this  passage  is  used  in  the 
same  personal  significance  which  it  has  in  the  Pro- 
logue, or  merely  in  the  sense  of  the  life-giving  reve- 
lation which  Christ  brought.  This  question  is  at 
least  serious  enough  to  suggest  how  very  readily  this 
expression  might  rise  from  the  designation  of  Christ's 
saving  revelation  to  the  name  for  the  Revealer  himself. 
According  to  the  common  New  Testament  use,  "  the 
word  of  God,"  "  the  word  of  the  Lord,"  or  simply 
**  the  word,"  denotes  the  powerful,  hfe-giving  revela- 
tion of  the  Gospel,  Heb.  4  12 ;  it  is  not  applied  to  the 
Old  Testament  as  a  whole,  but  only  to  such  sayings  as 
contain  a  prophecy  of  the  Gospel,  or  are  actually  the 
expression  of  God's  own  message  to  the  prophets. 
With  S.  John  especially  all  the  words  of  Christ  are  a 
powerfully  energetic  revelation ;  all  Christ's  sayings 
are  thought  of  as  an  unit  I.  2  5  etc. ;  this  word  is  to  be 
kept,  for  it  is  itself  a  commandment  L  2  7 ;  it  is  the 
truth,  and  as  such  directly  sanctifies  1717;  its  recep- 


90  THE  LOGOS    WITH  GOD 

tion  delivers  from  death  851  and  from  judgment  12  47; 
the  words  (^pi]tJLaTa)  of  Christ  are  spirit  and  life  663. 
In  the  Apocalypse  also  '*  the  word  of  God  "  is  used 
with  very  marked  emphasis,  even  where  it  is  not,  as 
in  19  13,  employed  as  a  personal  name.  When  we 
note  how  closely  *'  the  Word  of  life  "  I.  i  i  seems  to 
be  related  to  this  usage,  we  can  realize  how  natural 
after  all  was  S.  John's  use  of  the  name  Word  in  the 
Prologue.  But  even  in  this  verse  we  cannot  admit 
that  the  expression  means  simply  the  revelation  of 
life ;  —  if  for  no  other  reason,  because  it  would  leave 
us  without  any  clew  to  explain  the  extraordinary 
grammatical  construction,  and  in  particular  the  change 
from  the  relative  construction  to  the  prepositional 
phrase  ''  co7icer?ting  (rrepi)  the  Word  of  life."  The 
verb  of  the  whole  sentence  is  '*  we  declare  "  (airayyeX- 
\ofi€v),  and  if  it  was  simply  a  question  of  the  message 
which  he  had  heard  from  Christ  S.  John  must  inevit- 
ably have  construed  it  as  the  direct  object  of  the 
verb,  as  in  verse  5.  It  is  obvious  too  that  the  con- 
tent of  this  clause  is  defined  by  the  relative  clauses 
which  precede  it :  *'  That  which  was  from  the  begin- 
ning, which  we  have  heard,  seen,  handled,  etc." 
What  does  S.  John  intend  by  that?  He  surely  does 
not  mean  the  Son  of  God  himself;  or  why  should  he 
express  himself  so  strangely  in  the  neuter?  More- 
over we  should  in  this  case  have  in  I.  i  i  something 
different  presented  as  the  object  of  his  declaration 
from  that  which  is  named  in  I.  i  2.  Substantially  at 
least  the  content  of  the  first  verse  must  be  the  same  as 
that  eternal  life  which,  in  the  second,  is  declared  to 
have  been  with  the  Father  and  to  have  been  mani- 
fested unto  us ;  —  only  in  form  it  is  not  then  thought 


S.  JOHN'S  DOCTRINE   OF  THE   LOGOS  91 

of  as  the  concrete  representation  of  eternal  life,  but, 
abstractly,  as  that  which  constituted  the  eternal 
nature  of  the  Son,  and  yet  was  revealed  in  sensible, 
historical  manifestation.  The  Son  of  God  was  the 
subject  of  the  saving  message  of  the  Gospel  precisely 
in  so  far  as  in  him  was,  and  was  manifested,  that  true 
and  eternal  life  which  being  manifested  became  light 
I  4  —  that  is,  the  revelation  of  the  true  God  and  of 
his  Son  Jesus  Christ  —  and  so  by  bringing  to  men  the 
knowledge  of  God,  mediated  to  them  the  eternal  life 
itself  173.  It  is  this  essential  nature  of  the  Son  of 
God  which  the  Apostle  would  represent  as  the  con- 
tent of  his  declaration ;  and  in  order  to  embrace  this 
in  one  word,  he  breaks  the  relative  construction  with 
this  clause,  ''concerning  the  Word  of  life  " ; — the 
Word  himself  was  not  the  subject  of  his  declaration, 
but  that  which  had  been  manifested  as  his  essential 
nature.  When  in  I.  i  5  he  sums  up  the  message  in  the 
declaration,  "  God  is  light,"  this  is  indeed  the  sum- 
mary of  Jesus'  manifestation  in  word  and  work,  but  it 
is  not  the  Logos  himself;  — therefore  the  expression, 
'*  concerning  the  Logos."  The  controversy  is  idle, 
whether  '*  the  Word  of  life "  represents  the  Word 
which  has  life,  or  the  Word  which  gives  life ;  for  we 
have  already  seen  that  according  to  S.  John's  most 
characteristic  mode  of  thought  he  is  both.  The 
essential  nature  of  the  Son  of  God  is  marked  not  only 
by  the  fact  that  he  has  eternal  life  in  himself,  but  that 
he  is  able  to  impart  it  to  men.  Therefore  it  is  that 
in  the  relative  clause  the  fact  of  his  existence  in  the 
beginning  is  associated  with  his  historical  manifes- 
tation ;  and  the  life  is  spoken  of  as  that  "  which  was 
with  the  Father  and  was  manifested  unto  us." 


92  THE   LOGOS    WITH  GOD 

We  see,  therefore,  from  the  first  verses  of  the 
Epistle  that  the  term  "  Word,"  though  it  is  strictly  a 
personal  title  of  Christ,  designates  him  not  so  much 
I  according  to  his  personality,  as  according  to  his 
i  essential  nature ;  and  this  accounts  for  a  mode  of 
expression  which  is  often  held  to  suggest  that  '*  the 
Word  of  life"  is  here  used  quite  impersonally  and 
as  a  designation  of  the  Gospel  revelation.  When  we 
turn  to  the  Prologue  we  find  the  term  Word  em- 
ployed in  quite  the  same  way,  but  with  more  various 
and  more  express  associations.  It  is  there  stated 
that  "  the  W^ord  was  in  the  beginning."  The  expres- 
sion of  the  first  verse  of  the  Epistle  —  *' from  the 
beginning"  —  is  slightly  different,  because  the  Word 
is  there  considered  only  in  so  far  as  he  is  the  subject 
of  the  Gospel  proclamation,  that  is,  as  he  was  histori- 
cally manifested  to  the  senses ;  whereas  in  the  Pro- 
logue we  are  pointed  to  his  timeless  existence  "  with 
God."  It  was  similarly  stated  in  the  second  verse  of 
the  Epistle  that  **  the  life  was  with  the  Father,"  and 
it  is  justly  remarked  that  the  preposition  tt/jo?  in- 
stead of  irapa  denotes  not  mere  juxtaposition,  but 
lively  personal  community.  A  stricter,  though  un- 
idiomatic,  rendering  would  be  "  towards  God."  It  is 
further  stated,  and  by  a  turn  of  expression  which  is 
very  emphatic,  that  "  the  Logos  was  God.**  This 
triple  affirmation  is  in  a  certain  degree  isolated  from, 
not  to  say  contrasted  with,  the  statements  which 
follow.  It  constitutes  the  complete  expression  of 
what  the  Word  is  in  his  relation  to  God.  In  verses 
2  and  3  it  is  announced  that  he  who  was  in  the  be- 
ginning with  God  became  the  medium  of  creation : 
•'  All  things  were   made  through  him,  and   without 


S.  JOHN'S  DOCTRINE   OF  THE  LOGOS  93 

him  was  not  anything  made  that  hath  been  made." 
It  is  further  stated,  on  a  Hne  with  the  second  verse 
of  the  Epistle,  "  In  him  was  Hfe  " ;  and  Hfe  is  here 
brought  into  a  relation  with  light — "and  the  life 
was  the  light  of  men  "  —  which  we  shall  learn  to 
appreciate  fully  only  after  the  discussion  of  a  later 
topic  (pp.  162  seq^.  But  even  now  we  can  very 
well  understand  the  expression  in  so  far  as  it  affirms 
that  the  Word  was  also  the  medium  of  revelation. 
This  thought  is  continued  down  to  verse  14:  *•  The 
light  shineth  in  the  darkness ;  and  the  darkness  ap- 
prehended it  not "  I  5.  The  Baptist  as  a  mere  wit- 
ness is  distinguished  from  the  true  light  I  6-8,  «'  TJie 
true  light,  which  lighteth  every  man,  was  coming 
into  the  world.  He  was  in  the  world,  and  the  world 
was  made  through  him,  and  the  world  knew  him  not. 
He  came  unto  his  own,  and  his  own  received  him 
not "  1 9-".  It  is  here  affirmed  that  corresponding  to 
the  universal  relation  which  the  Logos  has  to  the 
world  as  its  creator,  he  is  also  universally  the  media- 
tor of  revelation.  But  he  can  particularly  claim  the 
Jewish  people  as  **  his  own  "  on  the  ground  of  his 
special  revelation  to  them  through  the  Old  Testa- 
ment prophets ;  as  by  the  acceptance  of  the  revela- 
tion which  he  personally  brings,  men  become  truly 
the  children  of  God   I  12. 

In  all  this  there  are  substantially  but  three  assertions 
which  are  not  included  in  Jesus'  self-witness,  nor  ex- 
pressed with  reference  to  the  Son  of  God.  The  first : 
oneness  of  nature  with  God,  is,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
particular  point  of  S.  John's  belief  which  prompted 
the  invention  of  such  a  designation  as  the  Word.  The 
second  and  third :   participation  in  the  creation,  and 


94  THE  LOGOS   WITH  GOD 

mediation  in  the  revelation  of  truth,  were  on  the 
other  hand  not  improbably  suggested  by  the  name 
Word  itself.  We  shall  see  in  another  place,  where  we 
discuss  in  detail  the  relation  of  the  Prologue  to  the 
first  chapter  of  Genesis  (pp.  113  j^^.),  how  near  lay 
the  suggestion  of  attributing  to  the  personal  Word  of 
God  the  act  of  creation.  In  the  idea  of  Son  there 
was  already  included  the  special  fitness  to  interpret 
the  Father's  nature  and  will,  and  this  was  a  pre-emi- 
nent factor  of  Jesus'  claim  ;  but  it  is  not  unlikely  that 
this  very  name  which  S.  John  chose  to  designate  the 
Son  of  God  as  pre-incarnate  first  brought  to  expression 
in  his  own  mind  the  idea  that  he  was  in  old  time  also 
the  medium  of  revelation; — that  he  in  fact  was  the 
Word  which  came  to  the  prophets. 

The  Word  which  was  in  the  beginning  with  God, 
and  participated  in  God's  work  of  creation  and  revela- 
tion, is  brought  into  relation  with  the  historical  Christ 
in  the  simple  affirmation,  "  The  Word  became  flesh'' 
I  14.  With  this  however  we  pass  from  the  subject  of 
this  section  to  the  Logos  as  manifested  in  the  world ; 
—  a  theme  which  we  shall  have  to  postpone  to  page 
118  seq. 


Ill 

THE   KOSMOS   LYING   IN   DARKNESS 

THE    WORLD   AS    THE    SPHERE  OF  HUMAN    LIFE 

S.  John  conceives  very  vividly  the  contrast  between 
the  divine  nature  and  the  created  world.  As  God 
is  Hght,  and  in  the  light;  so  is  the  world  charac- 
terised by  darkness.  But  this  contrast,  strongly  as  it 
s.  John's  sught  is  marked,  has  no  point  of  contact  with 
SSrfai1s'i«spl"l°=°pl"<^  dualism;  for  "darkness"  is 
Of  the  World  an  ethical  conception,  and  the  world 
which  S.  John  has  in  mind  is  not  the  material  universe  as 
such,  but  the  sphere  of  human  existence  The  slight 
interest  which  S.  John  shows  in  the  material  aspects 
of  the  world  proves  how  utterly  alien  to  his  thought 
are  the  cosmological  speculations  which  have  been 
attributed  to  him  as  the  motive  of  his  so-called 
doctrine  of  the  Logos.  He  needed  no  intermediary 
to  bridge  the  gulf  between  the  invisible  God  and  the 
sensible  world ;  for  this  was  not  the  contrast  which 
occupied  his  mind.  Even  human  nature  itself  as  it  is 
physically  constituted  is  not  evil ;  and  therefore  the 
Logos,  who  is  God  and  not  a  being  of  intermediate 
grade,  can  become  flesh.  God  through  the  Logos 
created  the  world,  and  there  is  not  anything  which 
is  excepted  from  this  relationship  of  creature  to 
Creator.  There  is  therefore  no  radical  opposition 
between   the  world  as  such    and   God  ;   and  even  the 


96  THE   KOSMOS  LYING   IN  DARKNESS 

world  of  human  existence  which  has  fallen  into 
rebellion  against  him  is  the  object  of  his  love  and 
saving  effort.  The  world  is  not  the  sphere  in  which 
God  ordinarily  dwells ;  but  it  is  a  sphere  into  which 
he  can  come,  and  in  which  he  may  even  dwell 
(tabernacle)  for  a  time  i  9  10  14.  There  is  nothing  to 
suggest  that  S.  John  departed  in  any  respect  from 
the  common  Biblical  view  of  the  world.  There  is 
very  little  in  his  writings  which  bears  upon  this 
question,  because  it  simply  was  not  a  subject  of 
interest   to    him. 

There  is  another  contrast  in  which  the  world  is 
involved,  and  that  too  is  the  familiar  Old  Testament 
contrast  of  heaven  and  earth.  These  two  spheres  are 
Heaven  and  contrasted  not  only  in  character,  but  in 
*^**^  space,  as  ''  above  "    and  "  below  "  8  23,  in 

harmony  with  the  constant  representation  of  the  Old 
Testament ;  —  *'  heaven  above  and  the  earth  beneath  " 
Deut.  5  8.  The  lower  world  he  also  calls  "  this  world  " 
(o  Koayio^  ovTO(;)  8  23  in  contrast  to  the  higher,  or 
heavenly  world  ;  though  the  name  world  itself  usually 
suffices  to  denote  the  sphere  of  human  existence  in 
distinction  from  heaven  in  which  God  is  1628  17  n  13. 
S.  John  is  consistent  and  thorough  with  his  represen- 
tation of  above  and  below ;  it  is  doubtless  more  than 
a  figure  of  speech.  The  Spirit  I  32,  the  angels  I  51  and 
the  Son  of  man  3  .3  31  633  38  41  se^.  50  seg.  5S62  are  repre- 
sented as  descending  (Kara(3aiP€ip,  dvcodep  ep'xeaOai) 
from  heaven,  and  their  return  is  an  ascent  {ava^alveiv). 
Heaven  is  not  only  separated  in  space  from  the  earth, 
but  is  itself  conceived  in  truly  Jewish  fashion  in  terms 
of  space.  In  the  Father's  house  are  "  many  man- 
sions "  in  which  Jesus  on  his  return  thither  will  pre- 


THE   SPHERE   OF  HUMAN  LIFE 


97 


pare  a  place  for  his  disciples  14  2;  and  this  probably 
indicates  the  Biblical  conception  of  heaven  as  a  place 
characterised  by  many  grades.  About  the  constitu- 
tion of  heaven  S.  John  does  not  however  speculate 
any  more  than  he  does  about  the  constitution  of  the 
earth:  the  religious  interest  is  everything  to  him,  and 
heaven  and  earth  are  only  the  sphere  in  which  the 
drama  of  salvation  is  enacted. 

The  contrast  between  God  and  the  world,  between 
darkness  and  light,  just  because  it  is  an  ethical  con- 
trast, is  one  of  prime  importance  to  S.  John,  and 
affects  the  whole  scheme  of  his  representation.  Both 
heaven  and  earth  are  represented  in  Gen.  i  i  as 
equally  the  creation  of  God ;  and  S.  John  doubtless 
comprises  them  both  in  the  third  verse  of  the  Pro- 
logue :  "  All  things  were  made  through  him ;  and 
without  him  was  not  anything  made  which  was 
made."  He  does  not  however  so  much  think  of 
them  as  constituting  one  universe,  but  rather  as  ex- 
The  Material  hibiting  the  moral  contrast  which  has 
Chaos  and  the  come  about  within  God's  creation;  and 
ar  nessj^^  thinks  of  the  world  as  an  object  re- 
quiring salvation  out  of  the  evil  and  darkness  into 
which  it  has  fallen.  Darkness,  as  an  ethical  condi- 
tion, could  not  have  been  the  original  and  necessary 
character  of  the  world :  it  came  about  as  an  historical 
development,  and  (as  we  shall  see  on  page  108  seq.) 
in  no  other  way  than  that  which  is  represented  in  the 
Book  of  Genesis,  namely,  through  sin.  But,  however 
it  came  about,  darkness  is  the  character  of  the  world 
as  Jesus  finds  it.  It  is  into  a  realm  of  spiritual  dark- 
ness and  death  that  he  comes  bringing  light  and  life. 
This  world,  which  as  we  have  seen  is   simply  the 

7 


98  THE   KOSMOS  LV/xVG   IN  DARKNESS 

totality  of  human  nature,  or  the  sphere  of  human 
life,  S.  John  conceives,  after  the  analogy  of  the  chaos 
which  preceded  the  material  creation,  as  the  object 
of  God's  saving  work,  the  matter  of  a  veritable  new 
creation.  Here  too  it  is  the  same  divine  Word  which 
effects  the  re-creation ;  the  first  boon  which  he  brings 
is  light  (a  spiritual  light,  *'  the  light  of  men  "  i  4)  ; 
and  this  conditions  all  spiritual  life. 

THE  DARKNESS 

Important  as  this  antithesis  between  God  and  the 

world  certainly  was  in  the  development  of  S.  John's 

thought,  and  absolutely  as  he  expresses  the  fact  that 

when  Christ  came  as  a  light  into  the  world  he  found 

it  simply  darkness,  we  cannot  allow  the  absoluteness 

»u  -B  ,  ^  of  this  antithesis  to  determine  in  detail 
Tne  Kevelatioii 

of  the  Old  his  conception  of  the  state   of  mankind 

Covenant  before  the  Incarnation.     For  in  the  first 

place,  although  **  the  darkness  apprehended  not  the 
light"  Is,  "and  his  own  received  him  not"  in; 
there  were  nevertheless  those  who  did  receive  him 
I  12,  and  before  they  became  his  they  belonged  to 
the  Father  176.  There  were  in  fact  already  at  his 
coming  two  classes  of  men:  those  who  hate  the  light 
because  they  do  evil,  and  those  who  come  to  the 
light  because  they  do  the  truth  3202..  And  Jesus' 
work  consists  in  part  in  this,  that  he  separates  out  of 
the  darkness  those  who  by  God's  choice  and  their 
own  disposition  are  inclined  to  the  light  (see  pp.  133 
seq,^.  In  the  second  place,  S.  John  recognises  in 
the  Jewish  Scriptures  a  revelation  from  God,  and  in 
the  Jewish  nation  a  peculiar  relation  to  God  and 
knowledge  of  Him. 


THE   DARKNESS 


99 


We  have  already  interpreted  the  ninth  verse  of  the 
Prologue  to  mean  that  the  Logos  is  the  medium  of 
God's  universal  revelation  of  Himself  to  men,  and 
that  he  was  that  even  before  his  coming  into  the 
world.  But  at  any  rate  to  his  chosen  people  God  did 
give  special  revelations  of  his  character  and  of  his 
purpose,  and  the  value  of  such  revelation  is  shown 
pre-eminently  in  the  fact  that  Christ  himself  is  the 
subject  of  Old  Testament  prophecy.  "  Isaiah  saw 
his  glory,  and  he  spake  of  him"  1241;  Moses  wrote 
of  him  5  47  ^.  1 45,  and  also  the  prophets.  The  divine 
mission  of  John  the  Baptist  i  6  is  specially  empha- 
sised in  the  Fourth  Gospel ;  though  not  the  light  i  «, 
he  nevertheless  even  as  a  witness  to  the  true  light 
was  himself  "  the  lamp  which  burneth  and  shineth  " 
5  35.  S.  John's  interpretation  of  Caiaphas*  counsel 
1 1  5'  seq.  shows  very  strikingly  his  conception  of 
prophecy  as  the  official  distinction  of  the  Jewish 
nation  even  in  the  moment  when  they  were  consum- 
mating the  disruption  of  the  covenant  relation. 

The  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  possess  a 
value  as  a  revelation  of  truth  quite  apart  from  the 
fact  that  they  contain  the  word  of  God  spoken  to  the 
prophets :  the  various  sacred  writings  are  conceived 
of  as  a  unit,  as  **  the  Scripture  "  (a  term  which  is  used 
to  denote  the  Old  Testament  as  a  whole  7  3%  and  its 
individual  utterances  1937),  and  this  Scripture  "can- 
not be  broken  "  10  35.  S.John  is  not  one  whit  behind 
any  other  Apostle  in  his  estimate  of  the  worth  and 
trustworthiness  of  the  Scriptures,  both  in  respect  to 
the  facts  which  they  narrate,  and  to  the  revelation 
which  they  contain  respecting  God  and  Christ.  His 
references   to   the    Old    Testament   are    hardly   less 


ICX)  THE   KOSMOS  LYING  IN  DARKNESS 

numerous  than  those  of  S.  Matthew,  and  he  surpasses 
all  other  Evangelists  in  the  emphasis  which  he  lays 
upon  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy  in  Christ.  The 
Scriptures  as  a  whole  testify  of  Christ  5  39,  and  this 
witness  is  found  not  only  in  passages  which  are  ex- 
pressly prophetic,  but  in  the  Psalms  19242837,  and  even 
in  the  Law  1936  3  m.  It  is  this  prophetic  char- 
acter of  the  Scripture  which  had  the  predominant 
interest  for  S.  John.  So  complete  was  the  Scriptural 
prophecy  of  Jesus,  that  had  the  disciples  really  known 
the  Scripture,  they  would  have  known  what  must 
happen  to  him  20  9.  So  too  it  was  of  course  the 
prophetic  character  of  Scripture  which  gave  it  its 
abiding  worth  for  the  Church.  The  word  Law,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  used  to  describe  the  Scriptures  in 
respect  to  their  significance  for  the  Jewish  nation. 
Christ  in  addressing  the  Jews  speaks  of  "your  Law" 
8  17  10  35,  and  of  **  Moses'  Law"  723,  whereas  in  his 
use  of  the  word  Scripture  there  is  no  such  expression 
of  personal  detachment.  This,  however,  is  not  to  be 
taken  as  a  proof  that  Jesus  repudiated  the  obligation 
of  the  Law  for  himself  and  for  his  disciples ;  for  when 
he  says,  "  Which  of  you  convicteth  me  of  sin?  "  8  46  he 
must  be  understood  as  challenging  comparison  be- 
tween his  conduct  and  the  Law;  and  even  in  the 
alleged  cases  of  Sabbath-breaking  he  justifies  his 
action  by  a  right  interpretation  of  the  Law  7  22. 
Neither  is  it  to  be  supposed  that  S.  John,  distinguish- 
ing sharply  between  the  two  principal  divisions  of 
the  Scripture,  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  honors  the 
one  and  rejects  the  other;  for  in  Philip's  call  to 
Nathanacl  i  4s  the  two  are  most  intimately  combined ; 
- — "  of  whom  Moses  in  the  Law,  and  the  Prophets 


THE   DARKNESS  10 1 

did  write."  S.  John  did  not  even,  like  S.  Paul,  think 
of  the  Law  as  the  fundamental  contrast  to  the  Gospel. 
The  contrast  expressed  in  i  17  is  Pauline  only  in 
form :  **  For  the  Law  was  given  by  Moses ;  grace 
and  truth  came  by  Jesus  Christ."  Here  the  Law  is 
supposed  to  be  a  thing  good  in  itself,  or  the  peculiar 
excellence  of  the  gift  of  Christ  would  not  be  made  to 
appear  by  the  comparison.  The  point  of  the  com- 
parison is  suggested  by  the  preceding  verse,  "  Of  his 
fulness  we  have  all  received,  and  grace  for  grace." 
It  is  as  the  inexhaustible  gift  of  God  that  the  Gospel 
is  contrasted  with  the  Law,  which,  whatever  its  excel- 
lence, came  not  in  the  guise  of  a  gift,  but  of  a  requi- 
sition. It  is  true  that  the  term  Law  did  not  express 
to  the  Christian,  as  it  did  to  the  Jew,  the  predominant 
note  of  religion:  and  this  usage  which  we  note  in 
S.  John  is  precisely  that  which  was  natural  in  the  age 
in  which  he  wrote; — when  the  Jews  clung  to  the 
Old  Testament  as  Law,  while  the  Church  valued  it 
as  Scripture.  Nor  is  there  reason  to  think  it  unnat- 
ural in  the  mouth  of  Christ,  since  the  constant  trend 
of  his  teaching  was  away  from  the  legalising  spirit 
which  dominated  Judaism. 

It  seems  natural  to  suppose  that  the  Jews,  to  whom 
God  had  from  time  to  time  made  revelations  of  Him- 
self, to  whom  His  Prophets  even  then  came,  and 
who  had  in  the  Scriptures  a  veritable  witness  to 
Him»  must  be  accounted  to  have  some  knowledge  of 
The  Jews  in  the  God  before  Christ  came  to  them;  and  in 
Fourth  Gospel  f^^^^  Christ  does  allow  that  they  have  such 
knowledge,  at  least,  in  contrast  with  the  Samaritans 
4  22.  It  seems  therefore  hard  to  account  for  the  abso- 
luteness of  S.  John's  judgment  of  the  world  as  dark- 


I02  THE   KOSMOS  L  YING  IN  DARKNESS 

ness  at  the  appearing  of  Christ.  We  cannot  dismiss 
this  as  an  exaggeration  of  his  antithetical  mode  of 
thought;  nor  can  we  suppose  that  such  knowledge 
as  the  Jews  had  was  simply  outshone  by  the  bright- 
ness of  the  coming  light,  or  overlooked  in  the  thought 
of  the  universality  of  surrounding  darkness;  for  the 
Gospel  does  not  represent  the  Jews  as  merely  included 
in  the  darkness,  but  as  the  very  representatives  of  it 

The  role  which  is  accorded  the  Jewish  opponents 
of  Jesus,  is  in  fact  one  of  the  most  prominent  pecu- 
liarities of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  constitutes  a 
problem  which  is  justly  accounted  of  great  impor- 
tance. From  beginning  to  end  of  the  Gospel,  S. 
John's  representation  moves  on  the  lines  of  this 
opposition  between  Christ  and  the  Jews  I  i»  20 19 
and  7  &  8 ;  and  it  requires  but  a  glance  to  see 
that  in  it  is  summed  up  that  opposition  of  the  world 
to  Christ  which  makes  his  very  being  in  the  world  a 
conflict  with  the  world  1633.  This  conflict  with  the 
Jews  conditions  so  thoroughly  S.  John's  whole  repre- 
sentation, that  it  has  been  singled  out  as  the  special 
aim  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  This  however  it  cannot 
be,  in  view  of  S.  John's  express  declaration  in  20  31 
(see  page  25  seq.^.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  not 
sufficiently  explained  by  a  reference  to  the  author's 
literary  peculiarity,  his  preference  for  antithetical 
expression ;  nor  does  the  Jewish  unbelief  serve 
merely  as  the  dark  background  which  throws  into 
stronger  relief  the  picture  of  Jesus'  divine  glory. 
Either  case  would  presume  a  certain  indiff"erence  on 
the  part  of  the  author  to  the  fate  of  the  Jewish  nation. 
The  problem  strictly  is  this:  What  significance  are 
we  to  attach  to  the  Evangelist's  employment  of  the 


THE   DARKNESS  IO3 

Jews  as  the  representatives  of  the  unbelieving  world? 
If  the   problem   is  rightly  expressed  in   this  form,  it 
shows   how   insufficient  is   the  apparently  near-lying 
answer,  that  it  was  as  a  matter  of  fact  Jewish  unbelief 
with  which  Jesus  had  to  contend.     For  the  peculiarity 
of  S.  John's  representation  is  not  that  it  was  with  the 
Jews  Jesus  had   to  deal,   but  that  it  was  the  Jewish 
people  as  such  which  opposed  itself  to  Jesus'  revela- 
tion, and  brought  to  manifestation  the  alienation  of 
the  world  from  God  and  the  hate  of  the  darkness  for 
the  light.     That  is  plainly  enough  expressed  in  the 
general  name  the  Jews  under  which  S.  John  as  a  rule 
represents  the  antagonists  of  Jesus ;  —  without  mark- 
ing their  individuality  more  particularly.     This   use 
of  the   national   name  to  denote  indiscriminately  the 
various  opponents  of  Jesus,  is  in  contrast   with  the 
Synoptic   account;   and  it   is    doubtless    referable  in 
part  to  the  fact  that  S.  John  was  addressing  readers 
to  whom  the  distinction  between  the  Jewish  religious 
parties   was    no    longer   familiar.     But    it  cannot  be 
taken   to   indicate  that  the  author  himself  was   un- 
familiar with  the  precise  conditions  within  the  Jewish 
nation  in  the  time  of  Christ.     For  hand  in  hand  with 
this  summary  treatment  of  the  Jews  as  the  opponents 
of  Jesus,  there  runs  through  the  whole  Gospel  a  rep- 
resentation  of  the    individual    elements   with  which 
he   had   to   deal.     S.  John   distinguishes   in   a   very 
characteristic  way  between  the  rulers  and  the  people, 
725  seq.  i,^  seq.    18  35,    between    Jews,    Galileans    and 
Pereans,  between  the  easily  moved  multitude  which 
the  feasts  brought  together   in  Jerusalem,  and   the 
proper  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  72025.     No  Evangel- 
ist is  better  informed  than  he  about  the  recognition 


104  ^^^   KOSMOS  LYING   IN  DARKNESS 

which  Jesus  received  from  all  classes  of  the  nation, 
from  the  lowest  to  the  highest ;  and  about  the  applause 
which  he  received  when  for  the  moment  he  seemed 
to  realise  the  Messianic  expectation  ii  48  12  19.  He 
makes  it  plain,  too,  that  it  was  not  so  much  the  masses 
of  the  people  that  opposed  him ;  as  the  rulers,  the 
official  representatives  of  the  nation  74849.  Of  this 
ruling  class  he  mentions,  now  the  Pharisees,  now  the 
high-priests,  and  again  both  together,  as  the  recog- 
nised heads  of  the  nation,  and  as  coming  together  in 
Sanhedrim  to  pronounce  an  official  judgment  This 
v^ry  specification,  however,  serves  to  render  more 
definite  the  fact  that  in  picturing  the  opposition  of 
the  Jews  S.  John  is  following  a  tendency  which  is 
calculated  to  represent  the  apostasy  of  the  nation. 

If  we  must  acknowledge  such  a  tendency,  there  are 
but  two  possible  explanations  of  its  motive :  in  the 
manner  in  which  the  Evangelist  speaks  of  the  Jews, 
he  manifests  the  most  uncompromising  anti-judaism; 
or  he  betrays,  by  the  very  interest  which  he  bestows 
upon  this  trait  of  his  composition,  his  personal 
interest  in  the  Jewish  nation  and  in  its  fate. 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  anti-judaism  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  has  been  so  loudly  contended  for,  and 
has  so  seriously  prejudiced  the  question  of  its 
authorship,  there  is  in  fact  no  expression  in  the 
Gospel  of  ill-will  against  the  Jews;  — nothing  even 
which  could  match  the  "  woes "  recorded  by  the 
Synoptists.  It  cannot  be  claimed  that  there  is  in  S. 
John's  account  any  exaggeration  of  the  hostility 
which  Jesus  actually  encountered  from  the  Jews. 
We  learn  also  from  the  Synoptists  that  the  Jews  were 
less  ready  to  believe  than  the  Galileans,  who   were 


THE   DARKNESS 


105 


not  so  directly  under  the  influence  of  the  scribes  and 
priests  who  gave  the  dominant  tone  to  Judaism ;  and 
the  Jewish  opposition  comes  in  for  more  extended 
notice  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  because  the  author  has 
chosen  to  dwell  particularly  upon  the  episodes  of 
Jesus'  ministry  in  Judea.  On  the  contrary  there  is 
frequent  reference  to  belief  among  the  Jews,  extend- 
ing even  to  the  highest  circles  12  42.  The  resurrection 
of  Lazarus  leads  *'  many  Jews  "  to  faith  in  Jesus,  1 1  45, 
and  to  a  definite  separation  from  his  opponents  12  n. 
Even  the  covert  faith  of  Nicodemus  and  of  Joseph  of 
Arimathaea  comes  finally  to  public  expression  3  3 
193839.  And  S.  John  recognises  that  it  is  primarily 
in  "  this  fold  "  that  Jesus  finds  his  sheep  10  16. 

If  the  hypothesis  of  anti-judaism  proves  itself  in- 
sufficient to  account  for  the  whole  problem  we  are 
considering,  the  other  alternative  must  receive  its 
due  recognition.  There  is  no  lack  of  positive  support 
for  the  view  that  the  Evangelist  regards  with  personal 
interest,  even  with  intimate  sympathy,  the  fate  which 
overtook  the  Jewish  nation  in  consequence  of  its 
attitude  towards  Jesus.  (I  follow  here  very  closely, 
as  I  have  followed  more  freely  throughout  this  para- 
graph, the  exposition  of  Franke  :  **  Das  alte  Testament 
bei  Johannes,"  page  17  seq?).  Even  in  the  earliest 
expression  which  denotes  the  role  accorded  to  the 
Jews  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  i  n,  the  Evangelist  speaks 
of  the  rejection  of  the  Logos  by  "  his  own"  (ot  Xhioi) 
as  of  a  fact  of  tragic  significance.  And  the  retrospect 
of  12  37  seq.  shows  that  he  stood  before  the  unbelief  of 
the  nation  as  before  a  problem  which  was  only  then 
solved  for  him  when  he  found  the  doom  of  the 
covenant    people    predicted    in    the    words   of    the 


I06  THE  KOSMOS  LYING  IN  DARKNESS 

Prophet.  Even  then,  however,  he  looks  back  to 
the  fact  that  faith  was  actually  present,  though  not 
decided  enough  to  endure  the  separation  from  the 
Synagogue.  As  moreover  in  another  passage  it  is 
rejection  from  the  Synagogue  which  deters  from  a 
free  confession  of  Jesus  9  22,  or  results  from  it  9  34  scq.; 
so  in  the  prophetic  word  which  is  quoted  in  16  2  one 
detects  plainly  enough  what  was  the  trial  which  the 
Evangelist  found  hardest  of  all  the  hardship  which 
the  following  of  Jesus  brought  with  it  1225  15  is  1633 
17  14 1.  3  13 ;  —  namely,  the  breach  with  the  Synagogue, 
which  was  therefore  most  surely  the  home  of  his 
religious  life.  Then  however  he  as  well  as  S.  Paul 
was  a  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews  Phil.  3  5  II.  Cor.  1 1  22, 
and  in  the  one  case  no  more  than  in  the  other  can 
we  speak  of  anti-judaism.  The  same  fact  which 
appeared  to  S.  Paul  the  great  mystery  of  the  economy 
of  grace,  Rom.  1 1  25,  is  also  for  S.  John  the  highest 
problem  of  the  history  of  salvation :  the  fact  that  a 
congregation  of  believers  out  of  all  the  world,  without 
reference  to  race,  enjoys  salvation  in  Christ,  while  the 
covenant  people  remains  shut  out  from  it.  He  how- 
ever, looking  back  from  a  more  advanced  develop- 
ment of  history,  sees  the  fact  more  clearly  than  S. 
Paul,  and  speaks  not  merely  of  a  partial  and  tempor- 
ary rejection  of  Israel,  but  undertakes  to  show  how, 
in  the  place  of  the  Ihioi,  the  Old  Testament  people  of 
God's  possession,  in  whose  midst  Jesus  appeared, 
I  II,  another  congregation  of  '16101  had  been  constituted 
13  1;  and,  on  the  ground  of  a  common  faith,  not 
of  a  common  lineage,  had  become  God's  children, 
I  '2  seq. 
We  see,  therefore,  that  S.  John's  treatment  of  the 


THE   DARKNESS  IO7 

Jews  as  the  representatives  of  the  darkness  of  the 
world  does  not  imply  any  prejudice  against  their 
original  covenant  relation  to  God,  nor  against  their 
actual  reception  of  revelation  in  time  gone  by,  and 
present  possession  of  it  in  the  Scripture.  Christ 
affirms  that  '*  salvation  is  of  the  Jews,"  4  22 ;  he  asserts 
that  if  they  were  truly  Abraham's  children,  they 
would  do  the  works  of  Abraham  8  39 ;  that  if  they 
had  believed  Moses,  they  would  have  believed  him 
5  46 ;  and  that  the  very  Scriptures  upon  which  they 
rely,  bear  testimony  to  him  5  39.  The  Jews  therefore 
are  characterised  as  darkness,  not  because  no  light 
has  shone  upon  them,  but  because  the  light  has  not 
penetrated  them.  Light  and  darkness  are  ideas 
which  lie  strictly  in  the  moral  and  not  in  the  intellec- 
tual plane.  The  light  does  not  illuminate  mechanically 
from  the  outside,  it  demands  rather  a  willing  accep- 
tance into  the  heart.  The  darkness  therefore  which 
rejected  the  light  of  the  Logos  remained  none  the  less 
darkness  because  he  had  shone  upon  it.  It  was  of 
the  Jews  of  his  own  time  that  Jesus  affirmed,  '*  \(^ 
have  neither  heard  his  voice  at  any  time,  nor  seen  his 
face  "  5  37 ;  —  specifying  the  two  forms  in  which  God's 
revelation  came  in  old  time :  by  vision  and  liy  \'oice. 
But  not  only  does  no  new  revelation  come  to  them ; 
they  do  not  even  understand  the  Scriptures  which 
they  have  inherited  and  which  they  study  5  3940,  and 
hence  they  do  not  receive  the  witness  which  the 
Father  bears  to  the  Son  5  37,  because  God's  word  finds 
no  abiding-place  in  them  5  3s.  As  they  are  unable  to 
perceive  God's  witness,  so  they  do  not  understand 
Christ's  speech,  because  they  cannot  hear  his  word 
843. 


I08  THE  KOSMOS  LYING   IN  DARKNESS 

Since  it  is  in  the  rejection  of  Jesus  that  the  dark- 
ness of  the  world  comes  to  pre-eminent  expression, 
we  reaHse  that  for  S.  John,  unbeHef  is  the  superlative 
of  sin.     The   Jews  are  regarded   as  the 

sin  J  fc> 

representatives  of  the  evil  power  of  the 
darkness  in  its  struggle  against  the  light,  not  because 
they  were  peculiarly  distinguished  for  sensual  sins 
and  overt  transgressions  of  God's  Law,  but  because 
they  refused  to  receive  the  light.  Christ's  coming  into 
the  world  is  itself  a  judgment,  and  the  decision 
which  men  make  for  or  against  him,  lays  bare  the  in- 
most disposition  of  the  heart ;  —  "  and  this  is  the  judg- 
ment, that  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men 
loved  darkness  rather  than  light;  for  their  works 
were  evil  "  3  19.  Unbelief  is  not  a  category  which 
includes  all  sins ;  but  it  is  the  test  which  cuts  deep- 
est, and  which  most  conclusively  manifests  the  bent 
of  the  heart.  The  rejection  of  the  light  is  not  only 
significant  in  itself  as  a  moral  preference  for  dark- 
ness ;  but  it  further  argues  an  evil  life  in  the  man 
(  who  shuns  the  light  3  20  21.  So  predominant  is  this 
idea  of  sin  that  Jesus  says,  "  If  I  had  not  come  and 
spoken  unto  them,  they  had  not  had  sin :  but  now 
they  have  no  excuse  for  their  sin.  He  that  hateth  me 
hateth  my  Father  also.  If  I  had  not  done  the  works 
which  none  other  did,  they  had  not  had  sin:  but  now 
they  have  both  seen  and  hated  both  me  and  my 
Father"  15  22-24.  And  when  at  the  last  he  promises 
that  **  the  Paraclete  will  convict  the  world  in  respect 
of  sin,"  he  defines  the  sin  of  the  world  in  the  clause, 
"  of  sin,  because  they  believe  not  in  me "  i|  s  9 
The  sin  of  the  antichrist  is  variously  stated  as  the 
denial  "  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  "  I.  4  2 


THE  DARKNESS  IO9 

II.  7,  '*  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ "  I.  2  22,  or  as  the  denial 
"  of  the  Father  and  the  Son ;  "  in  any  case  it  concerns 
this  crucial  attitude  of  unbelief,  which  is  the  sin  par 
excellence  for  S.  John.  In  the  same  way,  in  accord- 
ance with  this  characteristic  of  S.  John,  we  must 
understand  the  "  sin  unto  death  "  I,  5  16 17.  We  cannot 
understand  it  as  anything  other  than  a  deliberate 
apostasy  from  Christ  which  involves  a  definitive 
crisis  of  the  soul.  It  is  the  sin  not  of  the  outsider, 
but  of  the  "  brother"  who  has  seen  Christ  and  hated 
him. 

S.  John  does  not  however  confine  himself  to  the 
consideration  of  the  sin  of  unbelief;  In  the  last  pas- 
sage which  we  quoted  he  contrasts  sin  unto  death  with 
sin  in  general :  '*  All  unrighteousness  is  sin ;  and 
there  is  a  sin  not  unto  death  "  I.  5  17.  The  expres- 
sion, "  sin  is  lawlessness,"  which  we  find  in  the 
Epistle  3  4,  shows  his  fundamental  adherence  to  the 
Old  Testament  conception  of  sin.  Sin  is  therefore 
not  limited  to  those  who  are  guilty  of  the  overt  act  of 
denial  of  Christ  15  «;  even  those  to  whom  the  mani- 
festation of  Christ's  light  has  not  come  are  in  a  state 
of  sin  ;  for  it  is  into  a  world  already  sinful  that  Christ 
comes,  "  to  take  away  the  sin  of  the  world  "  i  29  I.  3  5. 
It  is  a  world  completely  sinful ;  for  sin  is  co-exten- 
sive with  the  darkness,  and  it  is  expressly  stated  of 
the  world,  after  the  Christian  community  has  been 
separated  from  it,  that  it  "  lieth  all  of  it  in  the  Evil 
One  "  I.  5  19.  The  condition  of  sin  is  compared  to 
bondage  8  34.  Sin  is  in  a  negative  sense  death  (the 
absence  of  life),  and  it  is  only  by  faith  that  we  pass 
out  "  of  death  into  life  "  5  24  I.  3  m.  It  is  out  of  a 
perishing  condition  Christ  saves  us  3  16.     In  a  certain 


no  THE  KOSMOS  LYING  IN  DARKNESS 

sense  it  is  natural  for  men  to  sin;  for,  in  a  way  quite 
familiar  to  the  Old  Testament,  the  pleasures  of  the 
world  are  regarded  as  enticements  away  from  God. 
"  For  all  that  is  in  the  world,  the  lust  of  the  flesh,  and 
the  lust  of  the  eyes,  and  the  vainglory  of  life,  is  not  of 
the  Father,  but  of  the  world  "  I.  2  i6.  Flesh  however 
is  not  thought  of  as  an  evil  principle,  any  more  than 
is  the  eye ;  nor  can  we  take  Christ's  sentence  in  3  6, 
"  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,"  as  an 
expression  of  the  necessary  sinfulness  of  humanity, 
for  it  means  only  that  the  earth-born  is  unable  to 
transcend  the  earthly  sphere  without  a  begetting  from 
above.  Neither  is  the  world  itself  to  be  considered  evil 
by  virtue  of  its  physical  constitution;  for  it  is  the 
^creation  of  the  Logos.  S.  John  does  nevertheless  trace 
back  all  particular  acts  of  sin  to  a  single  principle  of 
sinfulness,  and  finally  to  the  Devil  himself,  who  rules 
in  the  world  143°,  and  whom  Christ  comes  to  cast 
out   12  31. 

S.  John  uses  both  the  noun  shi  (^aixapria)  and  the 
verb  to  sin  (d/uLapTiU'eu'^)  in  two  senses:  to  denote  the 
power  or  principle  of  sin,  or  to  denote  concrete  acts 
of  sin.  The  latter  sense  he  generally  expresses  by 
the  plural,  sins ;  but  it  is  not  always  possible  to 
distinguish  which  idea  is  uppermost  in  his  thought. 
This  distinction  helps  in  part  to  explain  how  in  the 
Epistle  he  can  denounce  the  claim  of  sinlessness  I  8, 
and  yet  assert  that  "  he  that  sinneth  hath  not  seen 
him,  hath  not  known  him"  3  6.  The  Christian  even 
is  often  guilty  of  particular  acts  of  sin  for  which  con- 
fession and  forgiveness  is  required ;  but  as  he  has 
been  freed  from  the  bondage  of  sin  8  36,  and  is  no 
longer  under  its  slavish  control,  he  cannot  habitually 


THE   DARKNESS  I  i  i 

practise  it,  nor  abide  in  it,  still  less  can  he  be  guilty 
of  sin  in  its  superlative  form,  by  denial  of  Christ.  We 
have  seen  also  that  sin  is  lawlessness  I.  3  h,  and  in 
that  expression  there  lies  a  conception  more  peculiar 
to  S.  John  than  at  first  appears ;  for  law  is  no  longer 
presented  in  the  form  of  many  precepts,  but  summed 
up  in  Christ's  example  of  love.  As  sin  against  God 
is  thought  of  chiefly  as  rejection  of  his  light,  so  all 
sin  against  man  is  included  in  the  idea  of  hate,  the 
transgression  of  the  law  of  love.  This  sin  is  traced 
back  to  Cain  "  who  was  of  the  Evil  One,  and  slew  his 
brother"  I.  312.  It  is  likely  that  S.  John  did  not 
think  so  much  of  the  unity  of  the  sinful  race  as 
derived  from  Adam,  as  of  the  moral  contrast  within 
the  race,  between  the  children  of  God  and  the  children 
of  the  Devil ;  of  this  contrast  Cain  was  the  represen- 
tative, and  his  sin  was  for  S.  John  the  antitypal  sin. 

But  even  Cain's  sin  is  traced  to  the  fact  that  he 
was  of  the  Evil  One,  who  himself  "  was  a  murderer 
from  the  beginning,"  8  44.  "  He  that  doeth  sin  is 
from  the  Devil,  for  the  Devil  sinneth  from  the  begin- 
ning" I.  3  s.  Christ  says  to  the  Jews:  "Ye  are  of 
your  father  the  Devil,  and  the  lusts  of  your  father  it 
is  your  will  to  do  "  8  44.  As  to  the  origin  of  the  Devil 
himself,  we  can  simply  say  that  S.  John  shows  no 
sign  that  he  speculated  at  all  about  it.  And  if  he  did 
not  speculate  about  it,  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that 
he  departed  so  far  from  the  common  doctrine  of  the 
Church  as  to  represent  the  Devil  as  in  any  sense  co- 
ordinate with  God,  as  the  eternal  principle  of  evil. 
Notwithstanding  an  expression  like  that  we  have  just 
quoted,  which  seems  to  represent  a  derivation  of 
nature  from  him,  he  is  simply  the  tempter,  as  we  see 


112  THE  KOSMQS  LYING  IN  DARKNES.'i 

in  the  case  of  Judas  132.  And  althou[^h  S.  John 
does  thus  dwell  upon  the  contrast  within  the  human 
race  between  the  children  of  God  and  the  children 
of  the  Devil,  although  he  often  represents  the  differ- 
ence between  them  as  something  which  antedated 
their  conscious  choice  of  Jesus  10  3  5 16;  we  cannot 
find  here  a  metaphysical  distinction  between  the  two 
classes,  which  necessitates  their  relation  to  Christ. 
For,  in  thorough  keeping  with  the  Old  Testament, 
this  difference  is  traced  to  God's  choice,  they  were 
his  before  they  were  Christ's  175;  and  yet  their  own 
choice  remains  one  of  perfect  freedom,  expressing 
the  character  of  their  will.  It  is  because  men  love 
darkness  rather  than  light,  that  they  reject  Christ 
and  are  therefore  justly  judged  3  19.  In  9  41  the 
maxim  is  expressed,  that  physically  necessitated 
action,  even  if  it  amounted  to  the  rejection  of  Jesus, 
cannot  be  accounted  sin  :  *'  If  ye  were  blind,  ye  would 
have  no  sin:  but  now  ye  say.  We  see:  your  sin 
remaineth." 


IV 

THE    LIFE   MANIFESTED 

PARALLEL    WITH    THE    FIRST    CHAPTERS    OF 
GENESIS 

We  have  now  before  us  the  two  great  generic  ideas 
of  Darkness  and  Light,  which  represent  the  contrast 
between  the  human  and  the  divine,  between  God  and 
the  world.     We  have  been  able  with  reasonable  certi- 
tude to  deduce  even  from  S.  John's  indirect  utter- 
ances,   his    view    of  the    nature    and    disposition    of 
God,  and  of  the  condition  of  the  world.     But  funda- 
mental as  these  topics  are,  they  are  only  the  intro- 
duction   to    the    themes    with    which    S.    John   most 
expressly  and  predominantly  deals.    Light  and  Dark- 
ness, as  we  have  come  to  understand  them,  are  in  a 
sense  the  postulates  of  S.  John's  theology :   they  are 
the  colours  with  which  his  picture  is  painted.     The 
contrast  involved  in  these  two  facts  represents  also 
the  problem   which  S.  John's   doctrine  solves.     But 
the  all-absorbing  fact  to  S.  John  is  not  that  the  world 
lieth  in  darkness,  nor  even  that  God  is  light;  but  that 
the  divine  light  has  actually  come  into  the  darkness. 
He  sees  the  world  perishing  in  darkness  and  death; 
he  sees  God  as  one  who  is  light  and  in  whom  is  no 
darkness  at  all:    but    he    does    not   speculate    upon 
these  two  facts,  he  does  not  even  strive  to  delineate 
them,  he   is  content    to   name   them   in    two    words. 

8 


114  ^^-^   L^^^   MANIFESTED 

What  he  does  describe  minutely,  what  he  dwells 
upon  almost  exclusively,  is  the  process  by  which  the 
light,  entering  into  the  darkness,  ov^ercomes  it  and 
saves  the  world.  The  proposition  that  "  God  is 
light"  does  not  merely  express  the  immanent  nature 
of  God  ;  but  also  the  fact  that,  as  it  is  the  very  nature 
of  light  to  shine,  so  it  is  God's  nature  to  manifest 
himself.  The  *'  heavenly  things  "  which  Jesus  reveals 
—  In  contrast  to  the  *'  earthly  things "  which  the 
teacher  of  Israel  might  be  supposed  to  know  —  are 
summed  up  in  this :  "  God  so  loved  the  worlds  that  he 
gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  bdieveth  on 
him  should  not  perishy  but  have  eternal  life  "  3  16.  It 
is  the  Logos  become  flesh,  the  life  and  the  light 
manifested  in  the  world,  the  Messiah  come  to  save 
the  world,  eternal  life,  the  new  birth,  the  conditions 
and  fruits  of  divine  sonship  ;  —  it  is  with  these  themes 
that  S.  John  is  constantly  occupied ;  and  upon  them 
the  great  majority  of  his  utterances  in  both  Epistle 
and  Gospel  directly  bear.  This  is  the  region  of 
Johannine  doctrine  with  which  we  have  yet  to  deal ; 
and  here  it  is  we  find  the  most  obvious  as  well  as 
the  most  interesting  of  the  Johannine  peculiarities. 

Before  we  proceed  more  closely  to  the  study  of 
this  section,  wc  must  examine  the  highly  interesting 
parallel  which  exists  between  the  Prologue  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  first  Chapters  of  the  Book  of  Genesis. 
Some  features  of  this  parallel  we  have  already  had 
occasion  to  note;  some  of  them  are  suggested  at  the 
very  first  glance  ;  but  the  parallel  extends  much 
further  and  more  into  detail  than  is  commonly  sup- 
posed. Its  importance  at  this  point  is  that  it  helps 
us   to    realise    S.   John's    thoroughly   objective,   one 


PARALLEL    IVITLL  GENESIS  115 

might  almost  say  pictorial,  conception  of  the  sphere 
and  operation  of  redemption;  and  that  it  furnishes 
luminous  points  of  suggestion  for  the  construction  of 
this  chapter  of  Johannine  thought. 

The  first  hint  of  this  relation  of  thought  is  the  very 
first  phrase  of  the  Gospel,  "  In  the  beginning."  This 
could  scarcely  have  been  written  without  a  reminis- 
cence of  the  first  words  of  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
ture ;  and  it  obviously  suggests  that  the  author  is 
about  to  write  a  second  Book  of  Genesis,  an  account 
of  a  new  creation.  If  we  have  in  the  Prologue  a 
parallel  \^\\h  Genesis,  the  phrase,  "in  the  beginning," 
must  in  the  two  instances  denote  not  the  same,  but  a 
different //;;/r ;  it  is  therefore  worth  while  observing 
that  the  word  "  beginning "  in  S.  John's  use  com- 
monly refers  to  the  commencement  of  the  Gospel 
dispensation,  to  the  time  of  the  appearance  of  Christ 
16  4  I.  2  724  II.  56.  The  several  ideas  which  are  com- 
mon to  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis  and  to  the  Pro- 
logue are  :  the  creative  Voice  —  the  Word  ;  the  light 
and  the  darkness  ;  and  the  various  manifestations  of 
life.  It  is  a  question  rather  curious  than  grave, 
whether  **  the  Spirit  of  God  "  in  Gen.  i  5  is  not  an- 
other point  of  contact  with  the  Gospel  re-creation ; 
but  it  is  at  least  not  at  all  improbable  that  Christ's  act 
of  breathing  out  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  his  disciples 
20  22  was  associated  in  S.  John's  mind  with  God's 
breathing  into  man  the  breath  of  life  as  recounted  in 
Gen.  2  7.  We  may  account  it  likely  that  S.  John's  idea 
of  eternal  life  was  associated  with  **  the  Tree  of  Life  ;  " 
and  it  is  possible  that  his  close  association  of  knowl- 
edge and  life  has  some  connection  with  the  two  trees 
of  the  Garden  (see  the  Apocalypse  for  this  and  other 


Il6  THE  LIFE  MANIFESTED 

analogies  with  the  terrestrial  Paradise).  With  these 
common  ideas  as  the  subject-matter,  the  parallel  is 
worked  out  as  follows.  In  Genesis  we  are  directed  to 
God  as  the  Creator  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth. 
Before  us  lies  a  material  chaos  enveloped  in  dark- 
ness; into  which  presently  at  the  utterance  of  the 
creative  word  shines  the  light ;  —  which  appears  later 
in  concrete  manifestation  as  "  lights."  The  creation 
proceeds  by  the  instrumentality  of  the  Word  to  effect 
a  still  further  division,  of  the  waters  from  the  waters, 
and  of  the  waters  from  the  land.  The  first  part  of 
creation  is  thus  effected  by  means  of  simple  mechan- 
ical separation;  further  development  is  wrought  by 
the  introduction  of  the  various  stages  of  life ; —  from 
the  green  herb  to  the  beast  wherein  is  a  living  soul. 
Man  is  not  only  the  climax  of  this  order  of  living  souls ; 
but  he  is  constituted  a  different  kind  by  the  breath 
of  God.  This  supreme  and  unique  product  of  crea- 
tion proceeds,  according  to  the  divine  command,  to 
multiply  and  fill  the  earth. 

The  world  for  S.  John  is,  as  we  have  repeatedly 
remarked,  simply  the  dwelling-place  of  mankind,  the 
sphere  of  human  souls.  This  psychical  sphere  has 
been  thrown  by  sin  into  a  state  of  spiritual  chaos ;  it 
is  under  the  power  of  darkness  and  of  the  Evil  One ; 
and  hence  it  is  the  object  of  salvation,  which  S.  John 
thinks  of  as  a  new  creation.  Accordingly,  quite 
parallel  with  Genesis,  his  description  takes  for  its 
"beginning"  the  commencement  of  the  re-creation. 
"  In  the  beginning,"  in  timeless  duration  extending 
back  from  this  point,  we  are  pointed  to  the  Word, 
who  was  with  God,  who  was  God.  He  is  disclosed 
as  the  original  Creator  of  all  things.     As  in  Genesis 


THE   PARALLEL    WLTH  GENESIS  \  \  7 

"  the  earth  was  without  form  and  void,  and  darkness 
was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep ;  "  so  here  there  lies 
before  us  a  spiritual  chaos  which  is  enveloped  in  spiri- 
tual darkness.  As  in  Genesis  the  first  moment  of 
creation  is  the  creative  word,  "  Let  there  be  light,"  so 
here  the  Word  is  the  personal  Creator,  and  he  also 
was  light ;  —  a  spiritual  light,  the  light  of  men.  By 
him  a  separation  is  effected  between  the  different  ele- 
ments of  the  world,  and  order  is  brought  out  of 
chaos.  We  shall  see  subsequently  (pp.  130  seq.) 
how  thoroughly  regulative  of  his  thought,  and  even 
of  the  order  of  his  narrative,  is  this  idea  of  the  divi- 
sion which  the  very  appearance  of  Christ  as  the  light 
brings  about  among  men.  But  not  only  was  he  light; 
**  in  him  was  life."  He  brings  eternal  life  to  men, 
and  this  as  we  shall  see  is  thought  of,  not  as  a  mere 
prolongation  of  physical  existence  which  would  else 
be  broken  off  by  death,  but  as  an  entirely  new  and 
superadded  gift,  which  has  its  beginning  in  the  new 
birth.  This  new  birth  ("  not  of  bloods,  nor  of  the 
will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God  ") 
is  parallel  to  the  first  divine  gift  of  psychical  life  in 
Gen.  2  7.  This  life  consists  in  the  felicity  of  knowl- 
edge of  and  fellowship  with  God  :  it  is  truly  possessed 
from  the  moment  of  the  new  birth,  but  there  is  a 
development  of  it  corresponding  to  the  develop- 
ment in  knowledge.  The  detailed  process  of  the 
production  of  physical  life  in  Genesis,  has  its  counter- 
part in  the  development  of  this  one  life;  just  as  the 
separate  moments  of  creation  are  here  blended  in 
the  continuous  operation  of  the  personal  Word.  A 
glance  at  the  table  of  contents  (pages  vi  and  vii)  will 
show    how  these   guiding  principles  of  thought  arc 


Il8  THE   LIFE   MANIFESTED 

wrought  out  in  S.  John's  doctrine ;  —  for  it  is  not 
only  the  Prologue,  but  the  whole  Gospel,  which  S. 
John,  in  the  terms  of  this  introduction,  would  set 
forth  as  a  second  Book  of  Genesis. 

THE    WORD    BECOME    FLESH 

Before  we  study  the  effects  produced  in  the  world 
by  the  coming  of  the  Word,  we  must  consider  what 
The  Nature  of  ^^^  involved  in  the  very  fact  of  this 
the  Incarnation  '^  coniuig''  out  of  the  heavenly  into  the 
earthly  sphere.  In  I  u  we  have  the  summary  ex- 
pression, *'  the  Word  became  flesh."  This  is  not 
meant  as  a  complete  and  formal  definition  of  the  act 
whereby  the  Logos  came  into  relation  with  humanity ; 
for  this  has  actually  been  the  theme  of  the  preceding 
verses,  and  is  expressed  generally  in  the  simple 
word  "  came."  But  by  this  phrase  is  expressed  the 
fact  that  in  coming  amongst  men,  he  became  what 
all  men  are :  namely,  flesh.  The  image  of  the  fol- 
lowing phrase,  '*  tabernacled  among  us,"  might 
suggest  that  the  Logos  merely  dwelt  in  a  human  body, 
as  a  form  of  manifestation.  But  to  become  flesh 
means  something  more  than  to  assume  a  body: 
Flesh  is  human  nature,  it  is  always  animated  flesh, 
the  seat  of  the  human  soul;  and  to  become  means 
actually  to  be  something  one  was  not  before.  S. 
John,  however,  presents  us  with  no  theory;  he  has 
merely  data  to  set  before  us.  What  could  be  more 
thoroughly  a  datum  of  his  experience  than  the  fact 
that  Jesus  was  man ;  whatever  theorising  he  did  on 
this  subject,  was  not  to  represent  how  the  Logos 
became  man,  but  how  the  man  Jesus  was  God. 


THE    WORD    nECOMF.    ET.ESIT  I  19 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  S.  John  in  the  very  Pro- 
logue lets  us  into  the  secret  of  Jesus*  divine  nature, 

^u  c  *«  ^^^^  that  he  composes  his  Gospel  with 
TheSonofMan       ....  ^  ^ 

the  distinct  purpose  of  establishing  belief 

in  him  as  the  Son  of  God  ;  he  nevertheless  drama- 
tises him  before  us  as  man.  As  a  man  he  appears 
in  the  familiar  relations  of  family  life:  with  his 
mother  and  his  brethren  he  attends  a  wedding,  evi- 
dently within  the  circle  of  his  friends  or  relatives  2  i^ ; 
he  abides  for  a  time  in  the  family  circle  at  Capernaum 
212;  his  brethren  even  undertake  to  lecture  him 
about  his  conduct  73-8;  and  from  the  cross  he  dis- 
plays his  care  for  his  mother  192526.  As  a  man 
Jesus  wept  at  the  grave  of  Lazarus,  1 1  .^5 ;  he  was 
troubled  in  soul  at  the  thought  of  death  1227;  and 
shows  even  a  momentar}'-  hesitation  whether  he  shall 
not  pray  to  be  delivered  from  this  hour.  In  8  40  he 
actually  calls  himself  a  man.  But  his  truly  human 
consciousness  is  expressed  nowhere  so  clearly  as  in 
his  relation  to  God.  Notwithstanding  the  exalted 
character  of  his  self-witness,  in  his  human  existence 
he  bears  even  to  the  Father  the  relation  of  a  man  to 
God  20  17 ;  he  prays  to  his  Father  12  27  and  chapter  17  ; 
he  thanks  him  for  his  gifts  6  ",  and  also  for  hearing 
his  petitions  1 1  41.  Though  S.  John  thinks  of  the 
Logos  as  the  Creator  of  all  things,  he  represents  the 
miracles  of  Jesus,  not  as  proceeding  from  his  own 
inherent  power,  but  as  given  him  by  the  Father,  in 
answer  to  his  prayer,  and  for  a  special  occasion  1 1 22 
41  5  36  14  10.  When  Jesus  says  that  he  seeks  not  his 
own  will,  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  him  5  30  637, 
he  postulates  the  double  possibility  of  following  his 
own  human  will,  or  the  will  of  God.     When  he  says 


I20  THE   LIFE  MANIFESTED 

that  he  seeks  not  his  own  honor,  but  that  of  his 
Father  8  49  50,  he  impHes  that  the  mastering  of  self- 
will  and  self-gratification  was  for  him,  as  for  other 
men,  a  moral  task.  The  Father's  will  is  expressed 
for  him,  as  it  is  for  other  men,  as  an  external  will,  as 
a  "commandment,"  124950;  and  his  life  therefore 
like  that  of  other  men  lies  under  the  stress  of  obliga- 
tion ;  —  he  includes  himself  with  his  disciples  under 
the  ethical  must :  "  We  must  work  the  works  of  him 
that  sent  me,"  9  4  R.  V.  This,  however,  is  no  irk- 
some duty,  for  the  fulfilment  of  his  Father's  will  is  his 
greatest  joy  434. 

To  express  the  fact  of  Christ's  truly  human  con- 
dition, S.  John  like  the  Synoptists  uses  Jesus'  self- 
chosen  name  **  the  Son  of  man."  And  this  name  is 
peculiarly  significant,  for  it  expresses  not  only  the 
fact  that  Christ  was  a  man  among  men,  but  that  his 
original  condition  was  something  quite  different;  for 
the  name  would  have  no  force  as  applied  to  one  who 
self^evidently  and  as  a  matter  of  course  was  man 
and  nothing  else.  The  passage  (Dan.  7 13)  which 
suggested  Christ's  use  of  this  name,  expressed  also 
the  thought  that  this  Son  of  man  was  from  heaven, 
and  was  to  establish  upon  earth  an  everlasting  king- 
dom. S.  John  shows  at  least  that  this  reference  was 
understood  by  the  Jews,  for  they  are  offended  at 
Jesus'  allusion  to  the  departure  of  the  Son  of  man 
from  the  earth  12  34 ;  —  an  idea  apparently  so  contrary 
to  the  Scriptural  prophecy.  The  name  *'  Son  of 
man  "  was  capable  however  of  representing  something 
more  than  the  common  Messianic  doctrine;  and  in 
two  passages  in  particular  its  peculiar  significance  is 
very    clearly    marked.       In   5  27  Jesus  says   that   the 


THE    WORD  BECOME   FLESH  \2\ 

Father  gave  the  Son  authority  to  execute  judgment, 

"  because    he    is    the    Son  of  man."     The  judgment 

which  is   here  spoken  of  consists  in  this,  that  some 

hear,  while  others   do  not  hear  Christ's  word  5  24  25. 

This  impHes  that  he  is  a  son  of  man  whose  word  can 

be  heard  and  apprehended,  and  because  he   is  this, 

because  he  comes   into  this  real   relation   with   men, 

God  gives  him  authority  of  judgment — cf.  3  i^.     \\\ 

the  discourse  of  the  sixth  chapter  concerning  the  true 

bread  of  life  which  comes  down  from  heaven,  we  see 

that  it  is  as  Son  of  man  that  Jesus  gives  this  bread  6*7. 

This  meat  from  heaven  can  be  brought   only  by  the 

Son  of  man  who  himself  also  is  from  thence ;  and  it 

can  be  imparted  to  men  only  by  one  who  like  him 

comes   into  relation  with    men.      Moreover,    as   the 

highest  revelation  of  God  is  given  in  Christ's  loving 

sacrifice  upon  the  cross,  through  which  it  becomes 

possible  that  men   may  eat  his  flesh  and  drink  his 

blood  6  S3,  it  is  clear  that  only  as  his  is  a  true  human 

life  can  it  be  relinquished  in  death ;   and  on  the  other 

hand,  that  only  as  he  is  the  highest  revelation  of  God 

can  his  death  impart  life. 

The  word  Messiah,  like  every  other  name  which 

was  employed  to  express  the  position  of  the  Logos 

in  his  earthly  manifestation,  was  used  also 
The  Messiah  /•     ,  •    i  1   ..•        1  •  -ru 

to  express  his  higher  relationship.      Ihe 

Messianic  idea  (expressed  not  only  under  the  title 
"  the  Christ,"  but  also  under  other  terms)  is  as  com- 
mon in  the  Fourth  Gospel  as  in  any  other;  and  the 
Fourth  Gospel  more  clearly  than  any  other  furnishes 
the  clue  to  the  process  by  which  the  popular  Messi- 
anic doctrines,  which  at  first  disposed  the  people  to 
welcome  Jesus,  turned  them  subsequently  to  enmity, 


122  THE   LIFE   MANIFESTED 

and  finally  brought  about  the  national  rejection  of  a 
Messiah  who  corresponded  so  poorly  to  their  dog- 
matic preconceptions.  It  is  charged  however  that 
S.  John  has  suffered  the  idea  of  the  Messiah,  and  its 
corollary  the  kingdom  of  God,  to  fall  into  the  back- 
ground ;  and  has  superseded  it  with  the  higher  con- 
ceptions involved  in  the  terms,  Logos  and  Son.  The 
importance,  however,  which  the  Messianic  hope  had 
for  him  is  shown  generally  by  the  fact  that  Jesus' 
constant  conflicts  with  the  Jews  revolved  about  this 
subject.  And  the  fact  that  Jesus  is  therein  repre- 
sented as  repudiating  the  Messianic  notions  of  the 
Jews,  cannot  indicate  on  the  part  of  the  author  either 
indifference  or  opposition  to  the  Messianic  idea  itself; 
for  we  see  also  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  that  Jesus' 
whole  ministry  was  occupied  in  raising  to  a  higher 
plane  the  popular  conceptions  of  the  Messianic  King 
and  his  kingdom.  We  cannot  fail  to  note  the  zeal 
with  which  S.  John  throughout  his  whole  Gospel 
pursues  the  proof  of  Jesus'  Messianic  character  ;  from 
the  witness  of  the  Baptist,  to  the  circumstances  of 
his  passion.  It  certainly  appears  as  if  the  Messianic 
problem  had  a  special  interest  for  him  just  because  it 
was  a  Jewish  question  and  involved  the  fate  of  the 
Nation.  We  cannot  help  noticing  a  joyful  note  in 
the  Evangelist's  reminiscence  of  those  first  days 
which  (as  the  unnamed  disciple)  he  passed  with 
Jesus  I  40:  and  the  key-note  of  those  days  was  the 
glad  assurance,  **  we  have  found  the  Messiah "  I  42. 
Nor  did  this  name,  much  as  it  must  have  gained  in 
significance,  become  old  and  out  of  date ;  for  he 
uses  this  title  in  the  Epistle,  and  expresses  the  very 
aim  of  his  Gospel  in  this,  "  that  ye  may  believe  that 


THE    WORD   BECOME  ELESII  123 

Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God."  \Vc  must 
perforce  forbear  to  pursue  in  detail  the  Messianic 
question  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  The  discussion, 
minute  and  prolonged  as  it  would  have  to  be, 
would  not  contribute  to  our  general  appreciation 
of  the  Johannine  theology.  Apart  from  the  subtle 
suggestions  of  criticism,  one  would  unhesitatingly 
form  the  opinion  that  S.  John  had  the  same  interest 
in  the  Messianic  character  of  Jesus  as  had  the  other 
Evangelists.  The  title,  Christ,  never  became  with 
him  a  mere  personal  name,  an  adjunct  of  the  name 
Jesus;  but  always  retains  its  original  force.  He 
speaks,  it  is  true,  of  "Jesus  Christ;  "  but  always  with 
the  significance  of  Jesus  the  Messiah.  Although  it 
is  true  that  the  confession  which  in  the  Epistle  is 
emphatically  made  the  test  of  orthodoxy — "that 
Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh" — is  directed 
especially  against  the  Gnostic  denial  that  the  heav- 
enly aeo7i  Christ  was  identical  with  the  man  Jesus ; 
yet  it  at  least  includes  the  assertion  of  his  real 
Messianic  character. ,  Jesus  does  not  expressl}'  sa}- 
to  the  world  "I  am  the  Christ;"  but  neither  does 
he  do  so  in  the  Synoptic  accounts.  When  the  Jews 
however  asked  him  to  tell  them  plainly,  "  if  thou  art 
the  Christ,"  Jesus  answered,  **  I  told  you,  and  ye 
believe  not"  10  24  25;  —  implying  that  this  has  been 
all  along  the  substance  of  his  claim.  In  the  same 
manner  he  acknowledges  Pilate's  question,  "  Art  thou 
a  king  then?"  1837.  If  S.  John  does  not  generally 
employ  the  Messianic  title  in  connection  with  what 
is  nevertheless  fundamentally  his  Scriptural  proof  of 
Jesus'  Messianic  character,  this  may  be  very  obviously 
explained  by  the  fact  that  for  his  gentile  readers  the 


124  ^-^^  ^^^^  MANIFESTED 

distinctly  Messianic  idea  was  of  less  interest  than  it 
was  to  the  author  himself,  whereas  the  Scriptural 
leg-itimation  in  itself  was  still  —  as  it  has  continued 
to  be — of  the  liveliest  interest.  It  remains  to  note 
the  fact  that  Jesus'  famihar  word,  "  the  kingdom  of 
God,"  is  recorded  in  only  two  passages  of  S.  John's 
Gospel  3  3  5  1 8  36.  This  however  only  corresponds 
to  the  fact  that  this  name  did  not  remain  in  the 
Apostolic  age  a  common  designation  of  the  Christian 
community.  What  may  have  been  the  causes  which 
led  to  its  disuse,  we  need  not  speculate;  but  there 
was  at  least  one  very  obvious  motive,  namely,  the 
fear  of  rousing  the  ready  suspicion  of  the  Roman 
Empire  against  the  Church  as  a  political  faction 
{cf.  19").  It  is  quite  in  accordance  with  the  design 
of  S.  John's  Gospel  —  which  was  an  interpretation 
rather  than  a  record  —  that  he  should  omit  even  so 
striking  a  feature  of  Jesus'  teaching; — or  rather 
omit  the  word,  in  order  that  he  might  interpret  the 
thing  m  terms  familiar  to  his  readers.  On  the  other 
hand  he  uses  the  Messianic  title  of  King  more  fre- 
quently and  emphatically  than  any  other  evangelist. 
It  is  as  "  the  King  of  Israel "  that  Nathanael  hails 
him  I  49;  as  King  that  he  makes  his  triumphal  en- 
trance into  Jerusalem  12  '3;  and  it  is  as  King  that  he 
stands  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Pilate,  and  as 
King  is  put  to  death. 

We  have  seen  that  the  Logos  in  his  earthly  mani- 
festation condescended  so  to  divest  himself  of  his 
proper  divine  attribute  of  power,  that  even  the  signs 
The  Incarnation  which  he  performed  were  not  manifesta- 
of^S^Gio^^o?  t'0"s  o^  h^s  creative  omnipotence,  but 
tkeLotfo*  rather  given  him,  or  performed  for  him, 


THE    WORD   BECOME   Fr.ESH 


125 


by  the  Father.  In  coming  into  the  world,  lie 
descended  from  heaven ;  and  in  a  certain  real  sense 
was  separated  from  God  3  «6,  and  became  subject  like 
a  creature  to  God's  commandment,  and  to  the  ethical 
conditions  of  human  life.  The  divine  glory  which  he 
had  with  the  Father  before  the  creation  of  the  world, 
and  which  was  restored  to  him  upon  his  ascension, 
he  was  deprived  of  in  his  earthly  life  175.  There 
was  however  no  incompatibility  in  this  contrast  be- 
tween the  eternal  glory  and  the  earthly  humility  of 
the  Logos  ;  it  was  resolved  very  simply  by  the  con- 
ception of  the  mission  of  the  Son.  This  idea  so 
common  with  S.  John,  *' that  the  Father  sent  the 
Son,"  is  used  at  once  to  express  his  subordination 
7  ^^  cf.  I  16,  and  his  exalted  relation  to  the  Father  8  .6. 
The  deprivation  which  he  thereby  suffered  of  the 
divine  power  and  glory,  was  essential  to  the  accom- 
plishment of  his  mission  as  a  man  amongst  men. 
But  there  were  on  the  other  hand  certain  possessions 
of  his  original  state  which  he  could  not  put  away 
from  him  without  defeating  the  very  purpose  of  his 
mission.  The  Evangelist's  comments  upon  Jesus' 
surprising  knowledge  of  men,  and  of  the  events  which 
were  to  complete  his  Messianic  career  6  162^,4730  13 
I  ti  1630  21  17,  do  not  expressly  ascribe  to  him  divine 
omniscience,  though  they  do  declare  that  he  was 
endowed  with  such  insight  as  was  requisite  for  his 
Messianic  work.  There  was  however  one  sort  of 
knowledge  which  Jesus  as  the  Revealer  of  God  (^in 
word  as  well  as  in  work)  must  and  did  possess  in  no 
partial  and  creaturely  way  :  that  was  tJie  knotvledge  of 
God.  His  constant  witness  was  to  the  effect  that  he 
possessed,  as   no    other    could    possess,   the    perfect 


126  THE  LIFE  MANIFESTED 

knowledge  of  God ;  and  that  this  was  derived,  not 
from  speculation,  nor  from  prophetic  inspiration,  but 
from  the  reminiscence  of  that  which  he  had  seen  in 
his  intimate  heavenly  intercourse  with  the  Father. 
Moreover,  as  the  appreciation  of  his  own  nature  was 
of  essential  importance  to  men,  he  must  retain,  and 
he  did  retain,  a  perfect  self-consciousness  of  what  he 
was  and  whence  he  came  8  m.  Even  this  knowledge 
however  he  reveals  to  men  only  under  the  terms  of 
his  mission,  as  a  commandment  of  his  Father  12  49. 
As  one  who  came  also  to  impart  life  to  men  10  10,  he 
possessed  life  in  an  unique  way ;  —  "  in  himself'  5  26, 
This  is  associated  with  his  possession  of  that  perfect 
knowledge  of  God,  which  is  a  condition  of  eternal 
life ;  but  he  also  claims  the  power  "■  to  take  again," 
as  he  also  of  his  own  will  **  lay  down,"  his  human, 
physical  life  lOis;  —  though  this  also  he  expresses 
as  a  "  commandment  received  from  my  Father." 

It  is  therefore  not  difficult  to  see  why,  in  spite  of 
facts  which  might  justly  be  used  to  represent  the 
earthly  manifestation  of  the  Son  of  God  as  a  state  of 
humiliation  (as  S.  Paul  thinks  of  it; — see  especially 
Phil.  2  5-1'),  S.  John  does  not  think  of  it  in  this  aspect. 
It  is  of  the  Word  Incarnate,  he  says,  "  we  beheld  his 
glory,  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  from  the  Father  " 
I  14.  And  this,  in  connection  with  the  expression 
*•  tabernacled,"  suggests  the  Shekinah,  the  glory  with 
which  God  himself  appeared  among  his  people  in 
the  tent  in  the  wilderness.  It  was  in  the  man  Jesus 
he  had  learned  to  know  what  God  is,  and  his  earthly 
manifestation  he  could  not  therefore  regard  as  an 
obscuration  of  divinity,  but  as  the  only  means 
whereby  the   divine   character   could   be   adequately 


THE    WORD  BECOME   ELES/I 


127 


manifested  to  men.  The  very  fact  that  Jesus  in  his 
own  person  revealed  God  not  so  much  in  terms  of 
might  as  of  love,  is  proof  that  this  is  the  most  exalted 
attribute  of  God,  his  pecuHar  glory,  and  the  very 
character  of  the  light  which  is  his  nature  I.  i  5. 
Because  therefore  the  love  of  Christ  was  shown 
supremely  in  just  those  moments  which  from  anc^thcr 
point  of  view  might  be  regarded  as  the  very  depths 
of  his  humiliation  —  his  menial  service  i3  3-'7,  his 
betrayal,  and  his  death — S.  John  regards  them  as 
the  highest  expression  of  his  glorification  among 
men; — which  was  at  the  same  time  a  glorification 
of  the  Father  13  .-;«.  It  is  in  short  as  the  light  of  the 
world  that  Jesus  appears  in  the  world.  And  although 
S.  John  notices  the  obstacles  of  prejudice  and  mis- 
conception which  hindered  the  Jews  from  believing 
upon  him;  he  is  nevertheless  assured  that  even  his 
earthly  manifestation  so  clearly  expressed  his  divin- 
ity, so  clearly  revealed  him  as  light,  that  only  those 
who  were  blinded  by  the  darkness,  or  who  wilfully 
turned  away  their  eyes,  could  fail  to  see.  To  the 
proof  of  Jesus'  divinity  which  the  conscience  ought 
to  possess  in  the  mere  beholding  of  him,  there  is 
added  Jesus'  self-witness,  the  witness  of  the  Baptist, 
and  of  the  Scripture,  and  of  the  works  which  his 
Father  gives  him;  — these  also  serve  to  glorify  him, 
and  to  render  it  the  more  inexcusable  that  any  should 
refuse  to  receive  him  for  that  which  in  his  very  nature 
he  is,  and  which  he  manifests  himself  to  be  1240.  It 
is  the  very  clearness  of  the  moral  decision  involved 
in  the  acknowledgment  or  the  denial  of  Jesus  which 
explains  the  position  of  the  Son  of  man  in  the  world 
at  once  as  Saviour  and  as  Judge. 


A.     SALVATION    OUT    OF    THE    WORLD 

1.   The  Whole  World  as  the  Object  of  Salvation 

One  cannot  fail  to  be  struck  with  the  iiniv^ersal 
reference  which  S.  John's  language  attributes  to 
Christ's  saving  work  in  the  world.  Not  only  is  he  in 
the  world  as  Saviour;  but  he  is  sent  as  "the  Saviour 
of  the  world  "  I.  4  m,  and  this  sending  is  an  expression 
of  God's  love  for  the  world  3  16.  The  Baptist  points 
to  him  as  "  the  lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the 
sin  of  the  world  "  i  29,  and  he  himself  testifies  that  he 
will  give  his  flesh  "for  the  life  of  the  world"  651. 
This  language  is  the  more  remarkable,  because  accord- 
ing to  S.  John's  predominant  use  of  this  word  in  his 
Epistle,  and  Christ's  uniform  use  of  it  in  his  last  dis- 
course with  his  disciples,  it  denotes,  not  the  totality 
of  human  existence,  but  the  evil  remnant  which  is  left 
after  the  Christian  community  has  been  gathered  out. 
It  is  the  evil  world  power,  in  contrast  to  the  Church ; 
it  is  not  merely  an  unbelieving  world,  but  a  persecuting 
world  17 14  I.  3  13,  which  openly  and  violently  displays 
its  antagonism  to  Christ  and  to  all  who  are  his. 
S.  John  beholds  the  whole  world  lying  in  the  Evil 
One  I.  5  19.  This  indicates  more  than  that  subjection 
to  darkness  and  sin  which  characterised  the  whole 
world  at  the  coming  of  Christ:  it  has  already  seen 
and  rejected  Christ;  it  is  therefore  ripe  for  judgment 
12  31,  for  the  reproof  of  its  sin  of  unbelief  16  s  9;   and 


SALVATION  OUT  OF   THE    WORf.D 


129 


Christ's  attitude  towards  it  is  only  that  of  conqueror 
1633;  in  that  last  hour  he  even  forbears  to  pray  for  it 
179,  although  he  still  looks  forward  to  an  ultimate 
turning  of  the  world  to  belief  through  the  ministry 
of  his  disciples   17202..     It  is  of  course  not  in   this 
exclusive  sense,  denoting  particularly  the  evil  residue, 
that  S.  John  uses  the  word  when  he  speaks  of  the 
Logos  coming  into  the  world,  and   of  Christ  as  the 
Saviour  of  the   world :    but   it  is   in   a    sense  which 
includes  also  this   evil   element;   for  it  is  the   wJiolc 
world.    This  universal  reference  is  put  beyond  a  doubt 
when  he  says,  "  he  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins;  and 
7iotfor  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  whole  world''  I.  2  a. 
It  is  not  as  though  he  were  Saviour  of  both  the  good 
and  the  bad ;   for  the  whole  world  was   in   darkness 
and  sin,  and  the  discrimination  of  the  two  classes  was 
subsequent  to  his  manifestation,  and  a  result  of  it, 
though   not  the    purpose    of  it.     Although   Christ's 
manifestation  in  the  world  is  actually  a  judgment,  and 
although  that  which  he  actually  accomplishes  is  in  9  39 
represented  as  the  purpose  of  his  coming;  there  is 
really  nothing  in  S.  John's  representation  to  contradict 
the  solemn  assertion  :   *'  God  sent  not  his  Son  into  the 
world  to  condem7i  the  world;  but  that  the  ivorld  should 
be  saved  through  him''  3  »?  12  47.     For  Christ's  judg- 
ment of  the  world  consists  simply  in  this,  that  God's 
loving  gift  of  light  to  the  world  has  as  its  inevitable 
consequence  the  revealing  of  the  darkness,  or  rather, 
it  presents  the    test  which  reveals    the    fundamental 
bent  of  every  heart.     ''And  this  is  the  Judgment,  that 
the  light  is  come  into  the  world,   and  men  loved  the 
darkness  rather  than  the  light"  3  19.     It  is  this  figure 
of  the  light  which   again    makes  S.  John's  meaning 


130  THE  LIFE   MANIFESTED 

clear  and  consistent.  Jesus  proclaims  himself  the 
light  of  the  world  812  1246,  and  in  9  she  represents 
that  being  in  the  world,  he  must  be  its  light.  It  is 
this  perfectly  objective  mode  of  thought  which  ex- 
plains S.  John's  meaning.  Just  as  the  light  shines  in 
the  world,  and  shines  none  the  less  because  the  dark- 
ness apprehendeth  it  not;  so,  in  the  simplicity  and 
directness  of  his  thought,  he  beholds  Jesus  lying 
objectively  before  the  world  as  the  sacrifice  and 
propitiation  for  its  sin;  and  none  the  \e.ssfor  all  — 
intended  for  all,  available  for  all  —  that  some  do  not 
accept  the  reconciliation  which  he  offers.  As  the 
Baptist  in  early  days  pointed  him  to  Jesus  as  "  the 
lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world  ;  " 
so  finally  he  saw  him  hang  upon  the  cross,  "  lifted 
up  "  before  the  eyes  of  the  whole  world,  **  as  Moses 
lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,"  *'  that  every  one 
that  believeth  in  him  may  have  eternal  life  "  3  m  15. 

2.  The  Division  amongst  Men 

The  Fourth  Gospel  records  no  more  striking  say- 
ing of  Jesus,  considering  the  circumstances  of  its 
utterance,  than  that  before  Pilate  and  the  rulers  of 
the  Jewish  nation :  "  To  this  end  have  I  been  born, 
and  to  this  end  am  I  come  into  the  world,  that  I 
should  bear  witness  unto  the  truth.  Every  one  that 
is  of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice''  1837.  At  this  word 
the  apparent  relationships  in  that  hall  of  judgment 
are  dissolved,  inverted,  and  Jesus  appears  as  Judge 
for  the  condemnation  of  his  judge  and  of  his  accusers, 
who  thereby  proved  that  they  were  not  of  the  truth, 
because  they  heard  not  his  voice.     It  is  characteristic 


SALVATION  OUT  OF   THE    WORLD  131 

of  S.  John  that  he  represents  the  apostasy  of  the 
nation  as  culminating  in  the  official  act  of  its  chiefs  in 
delivering  Jesus  up  to  the  Roman  power.  He  does 
not  record  the  extenuating  words  from  the  cross, 
"they  know  not  what  they  do,"  Luke  2334,  nor  in 
any  wise  admit  that  the  rulers  and  people  were  acting 
in  ignorance,  Acts  3  17:  it  was  the  clear  rejection,  on 
the  part  of  the  nation  and  its  rulers,  of  the  Messianic 
King.  It  is  rather  Pilate  whose  conduct  is  pityingly 
extenuated  on  the  ground  that  he  exercises  his  power 
only  subordinately  19 ",  and  under  the  dread  of 
offending  his  master  19 12;  whereas  it  is  Jesus'  own 
nation  and  the  chief  priests  who  delivered  him  unto 
him,  who  have  the  "greater  sin,"  183s  19".  This, 
as  we  have  seen,  is  in  accordance  with  S.  John's  con- 
stant representation,  that  the  very  manifestation  of 
the  truth  (which  is  the  light)  is  in  itself  the  judgment 
of  the  world.  In  8  43  Jesus  says,  "  why  do  ye  not 
understand  my  speech?  Eve7i  because  ye  cannot  hear 
my  word!^  This  however  is  not  a  necessitated  deaf- 
ness, although  it  is  traced  back  to  the  fact  that  the 
Devil  is  their  father;  for  it  is  expressly  said,  "  The 
lusts  ©f  your  father  it  is  your  will  to  do"  844.  Con- 
sistent with  his  claim  that  he  is  not  in  the  world  as 
Judge,  though  a  judgment  is  accomplished  by  his 
presence,  he  says:  "If  any  man  hear  my  sayings, 
and  keep  them  not,  I  judge  him  not;  for  I  came  not 
to  judge  the  world,  but  to  save  the  world.  He  that 
rejecteth  me,  and  receiveth  not  my  sayings,  hath  one 
that  judgeth  him :  the  word  that  I  spake,  the  same 
shall  judge  him  in  the  last  day''  124748.  The  judg- 
ment which  is  ascribed  to  Jesus'  word,  his  truth,  and 
his  light,  is  in  the  above  instances  represented  as  a 


132  THE  LIFE   MANIFESTED 

judgment  of  condemnation,  for  S.  John  uses  the  word 
almost  always  with  this  implication.  In  the  third 
chapter,  however,  where  he  speaks  of  the  judgment 
accomplished  by  the  light,  although  the  word  is  used 
simply  in  the  sense  of  condemnation  ("  He  that  be- 
lieveth  is  not  judged :  he  that  believeth  not  hath 
been  judged  already,"  3  is  ^.  3  19,)  he  nevertheless 
notices  the  double  effect  of  the  light:  upon  them 
who  come  to  it,  as  well  as  upon  them  who  hate  it 
3  20  2,.  In  another  place  he  uses  the  word  judg- 
ment itself  in  its  original  sense  of  mere  discrimination; 
and  denotes  that  the  judgment  which  Christ  is  actually 
accomplishing  in  the  world,  is  one  which  includes 
blessing  as  well  as  ban:  ''that  they  which  see  not 
may  see ;  and  that  they  which  see  may  become 
blind"  939.  This  is  parallel  to  the  saying  recorded 
by  S.  Luke:  "not  to  give  peace,  but  division"  12 
5'  seq.  This  reminds  us  that  also  according  to  the 
Synoptic  account,  Jesus'  earthly  manifestation  in 
some  sense  forestalls  the  final  judgment.  But  it  is 
peculiarly  characteristic  of  S.  John,  who  thinks  of 
the  blessings  of  the  Gospel  (salvation  and  eternal  life) 
as  substantially  present  here  and  now,  to  think  of  the 
judgment  also  as  virtually  realised  in  the  present. 
And  this  does  not  merely  mean  that  the  final  judg- 
ment has  only  to  pronounce  upon  the  works  already 
done  on  earth,  Rev.  2013;  but  the  division  itself,  the 
segregation  of  the  evil  and  the  good.  Mat.  25  32,  is  in 
some  sort  accomplished  by  Christ's  manifestation 
upon  earth.  This  idea  of  the  division  accomplished 
by  Jesus  amongst  the  men  who  heard  his  word,  is  one 
which  to  a  very  marked  degree  conditions  the  com- 
position of  the  Fourth  Gospel.     Besides  the  passages 


SALVATION  OUT  OF   THE    WORLD  133 

upon  which  we  have  been  commenting,  there  are  no 
others  so  expHcit  of  S.  John's  view ;  but  we  see  that 
the  whole  Gospel  is  arranged  with  a  view  to  demon- 
strate the  diverse  effects  which  the  word  of  Jesus  had 
upon  his  hearers,  and  to  display  the  division  which 
from  the  beginning  of  his  ministry  began  to  accom- 
plish itself  amongst  men.  It  is  hence  expressly 
mentioned  after  many  of  his  notable  sayings  or  works, 
that  "there  arose  a  division  among  the  multitudes 
concerning  him"  743  916  10 19  cf.  7 '2.  This  divi- 
sion proceeded  even  to  a  sifting  of  his  own  followers 
666;  Judas  finally  *'  went  out"  and  left  Jesus  at  last 
alone  with  his  true  friends  133'.  This  sifting  con- 
tinued in  the  Apostolic  Church  ;  and  the  apostasy  of 
its  members  was  regarded  as  a  sign  that  they  had 
never  really  belonged  to  the  community:  "They 
went  out  from  us,  but  they  were  not  of  us ;  for  if 
they  had  been  of  us,  they  would  have  continued  with 
us :  but  that  they  might  be  made  manifest  how  that 
they  all  are  not  of  us  "  I.  2  19. 

The  division  which  is  thus  accomplished  in  the 
world  is  not  a  mere  incident  of  Christ's  manifesta- 
tion; it  is,  as  regards  the  children  of  God,  an  essen- 
tial step  in  the  work  of  salvation.  It  has  been  already 
suggested  that  we  may  perhaps  find  here  a  parallel 
to  the  account  of  creation,  according  to  which  the 
mechanical  division  of  the  elements  of  the  world 
preceded  the  production  of  life.  At  any  rate  it  is  a 
matter  of  real  importance  that  the  children  of  God 
should  be  separated  from  the  evil  elements  of  the 
world.  It  is  especially  in  Jesus'  final  familiar  dis- 
course with  his  true  friends,  and  in  his  prayer  for 
them,  that  the  contrast  between  the  disciples  and  the 


134  THE  LIFE  MANIFESTED 

world  is  expressed.  Just  as  surely  as  they  are  "  in 
the  world"  13  •  17  ",  just  so  surely  are  they  *'  not  of 
the  world  "  1 5  19.  *'  They  are  not  of  the  world  even 
as  I  am  not  of  the  world"  17 16.  And  this  is  ex- 
plained by  the  fact  that  he  has  chosen  them  (or  that 
God  has  given  them  him  175)  '' out  oi  the  world" 
15  19.  At  the  end  of  his  Epistle  S.  John  expresses 
the  vivid  consciousness  which  the  Christian  com- 
munity had  of  its  separateness  from  the  world:  "We 
know  that  we  are  of  God,  and  the  whole  world  lieth 
in  the  Evil  One  "  5  19.  There  is  more  than  a  mere 
negative  advantage  in  this  separation  of  the  children 
of  God  from  the  world ;  or  rather  this  very  act  in- 
cludes the  formation  of  a  Christian  community,  which 
can  oppose  itself  as  a  unit  to  the  world  which  itself 
is  thought  of  as  a  unity  represented  in  the  person  of 
the  Prince  of  this  world,  and  constitutes  both  a  per- 
secuting and  a  tempting  power.  The  formation  of  a 
community  out  of  the  elements  scattered  abroad  in 
the  midst  of  the  darkness  of  the  world,  is  expressed 
in  the  saying,  '*  that  he  might  also  gather  together 
into  one  the  children  of  God  who  are  scattered 
abroad  "  1 1  52.  This  is  expressed  also  in  the  tenth 
chapter  in  Christ's  parable  of  the  shepherd.  There 
too  it  is  the  voice  of  Christ  which  collects  the  flock, 
10  5,  and  there  are  other  sheep  besides  those  of  the 
Jewish  fold  which  he  must  ''bring''  "and  they  shall 
become  one  flock,  one  shepherd  "  10  16.  This  idea  of 
unity  is  profoundly  emphasised  in  Jesus'  prayer,  in 
which,  looking  into  the  future  and  beyond  the  circle 
of  his  present  disciples,  he  entreats,  "  for  them  also 
who  believe  on  me  through  their  word ;  that  they 
may  all  be  one ;  as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in 


S  ALVA  TWA'  OUT  OF   THE    WORLD  135 

thee,  that  they  also  may  be  in  us:  that  the  world 
may  believe  that  thou  didst  send  me"  17202,.  We 
see  from  this  quotation,  and  in  general  by  a  reference 
to  the  whole  prayer,  that  this  unity  of  the  disciples 
is  of  the  highest  importance  in  manifold  directions. 
In  the  first  place,  it  is  a  positive  good  in  itself,  and 
the  condition  of  fellowship  with  one  another,  and 
with  God  in  Christ.  It  is  further  of  importance,  not 
only  for  protection  against  the  world,  and  as  a  means 
of  hostilely  overcoming  it;  but  as  a  means  of  gain- 
ing disciples  out  of  the  world,  and  even  winning  the 
world  itself  to  faith.  In  this  is  seen  the  reason  why, 
though  Christ  leaves  the  world,  the  disciples  must 
remain  in  it;  why  they  must  be  in  it,  though  not  of 
it;  for  Christ  has  sent  them  into  the  world,  even  as 
the  Father  sent  him  into  the  world  i/is  cf.  I.  417. 
We  see  therefore  that  this  division  which  is  brought 
about  by  the  shining  of  the  light  of  truth  in  the 
world,  thereby  gathering  together  into  one  the  scat- 
tered children  of  God  as  against  the  collective  might 
of  darkness,  is  the  first  and  fundamental  effect  of 
Christ's  work  of  salvation,  as  regards  both  the  indi- 
vidual and  the  community.  Notwithstanding  the 
mystical  element  of  S.  John's  thought,  and  his  vivid 
sense  of  personal  union  with  Christ  and  God,  salva- 
tion is  not  to  be  thought  of  apart  from  the  commu- 
nity, which  is  the  expression  of  separation  out  of  the 
world  and  of  adherence  to  Christ. 


3.   The  Doom  of  the  World 

We  have   seen  how  slight  a  stress   S.  John   lays 
upon  the  developments  of  the  future ;  that  ho  docs 


136  THE   LIFE   MANIFESTED 

not  dwell  upon  the  conceptions  of  now  and  then,  but 
of  here  and  there,  above  and  below,  heaven  and 
earth.  But  nevertheless  there  lingers  in  his  expres- 
sion, "  this  world "  (6  K6ayjo<^  ovro^),  the  implication 
of  another  and  a  future  world.  He  looks  forward  to 
Christ's  coining  again  143,  which  can  only  be  under- 
stood, in  the  common  New  Testament  sense,  of  the 
Parousia.  And  this  coming  is  regarded  not  only 
with  reference  to  his  receiving  of  his  own  unto  him- 
self, but  also  as  a  judgment;  for  it  requires  a  certain 
boldness  and  confidence  to  face  him  "at  his  coming" 
I.  2  28  —  or  as  it  is  said  in  I.  4  17,  "  in  the  day  of  judg- 
ment "  —  which  only  they  who  abide  in  him,  and  are 
perfected  in  love,  can  possess.  S.  John's  references 
to  the  "  last  day "  and  to  **  the  day  of  judgment " 
are  far  too  emphatic  to  allow  us  to  suppose  that  they 
are  merely  occasional  lapses  into  the  language  of  the 
current  representation  which  had  however  no  place 
in  the  scheme  of  his  own  thought.  The  language 
which  we  considered  under  the  last  topic,  concerning 
Christ's  judgment  as  in  a  sense  already  accom- 
plished, is  very  far  from  excluding  —  it  rather  pre- 
supposes —  a  future  day  of  judgment.  When  Jesus 
asserts  that  he  has  come  not  to  judge,  but  to  save  the 
world,  he  is  expressly  contradicting  the  Jewish  ex- 
pectation that  the  Messiah  at  his  coming  was  to 
judge  the  world ;  in  particular,  to  right  the  wrongs 
of  his  people,  and  execute  vengeance  upon  their  ene- 
mies. Jesus  repudiates  this  interpretation  of  his 
mission,  but  he  by  no  means  denies  the  necessity 
of  a  definite  judgment  of  mankind.  The  decisive 
sundering  of  the  wicked  from  the  righteous  is  essen- 
tial to  the  idea  of  completed  salvation ;  the  Christian 


SALVATIOX  our  Oh    THE    WORLD 


I3i 


theology  therefore  retained  the  Jewish  idea  of  the 
Messianic  judgment,  only  it  deferred  it,  as  the  de- 
veloped situation  demanded,  to  a  second  coming  of 
the  Messiah.  When  the  Fourth  Gospel  represents 
that  Christ  by  his  very  manifestation  accomplishes  a 
judgment  which  is  not  only  a  sentence  upon,  but  in 
some  measure  a  separation  of,  the  faithful  and  the 
unbelieving;  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  a  future  act 
of  judgment  is  thereby  rendered  superfluous ;  it  is 
rather  supposed  by  the  whole  character  of  this  repre- 
sentation that  Christ,  who  is  not  now  here  to  perform 
judgment  —  although  his  very  manifestation  does  in 
effect  accomplish  it  —  will  perform  it  hereafter.  For 
notwithstanding  his  denial  that  his  present  mission  is 
one  of  judgment,  Christ  confirms  the  Jewish  doctrine 
in  so  far  as  this,  that  judgment  is  a  Messianic  func- 
tion. He  claims  that  "  the  Father  hath  committed 
all  judgment  unto  the  Son  "  5  22 ;  and  again,  "  he 
gave  him  authority  to  execute  judgment,  because  he 
is  the  Son  of  man  "  5  27.  Even  the  special  blessing 
which  Christ  imparts,  the  eternal  life  which  S.  John 
thinks  of  predominantly  as  a  present  possession,  is 
not  complete  in  itself,  but  requires  still  a  special 
exercise  of  Christ's  power  in  raising  up  the  body  at 
the  last  day  639-41  cf.  1 1 24  25.  In  527-29  the  judg- 
ment which  is  committed  unto  the  Son  of  man,  is 
expressly  associated  with  the  resurrection,  '*  in  which 
all  that  are  in  the  tombs  shall  hear  his  voice,  and 
shall  come  forth;  they  that  have  done  good,  unto 
the  resurrection  of  life;  and  they  that  have  done  ill, 
unto  the  resurrection  of  judgment"  Christ's  word 
accomplishes  a  judgment  upon  earth;  it  is  his  word 
also  which  shall  judge  a  man   at  the  last  day  12  4*5. 


138  THE   LIFE   MANIFESTED 

There  is  nothing  to  suggest  that  S.  John's  idea  of  the 
last  day  is  in  any  way  different  from  the  conception 
which  was  common  to  Jewish  and  Christian  theology. 
According  to  the  Jewish  doctrine,  time  is  divided 
into  two  ages  or  ceoiis,  the  age  present,  and  the  age 
to  come.  The  "  last  day  "  is  the  end  of  the  present 
age  and  ushers  in  the  new.  Like  the  other  Apostles, 
S.  John  expects  this  consummation  in  the  near  future. 
In  his  Epistle  he  writes,  '*  it  is  the  last  hour  "I.  2  18. 
This  is  not  the  same  as  the  last  day;  it  means  rather 
the  hour  preceding  the  day;  (or  it  is  marked  by  the 
signs  which  were  to  precede  the  consummation,  and 
the  coming  of  Christ,  namely,  by  the  appearance  of 
the  antichrist  I.  2  18-22.  S.  John  speaks  of  many  anti- 
christs, and  displays  here  his  disposition  to  see  the 
fulfilment  of  prophecy  in  the  events  transacting  about 
him ;  but  there  is  in  this  no  essential  contradiction 
to  the  prophetic  tradition  of  a  single  antichrist,  for 
the  spirit  of  the  '*  many  false  prophets  "  is  one,  and 
as  ''  the  spirit  of  error  "  it  is  contrasted  with  "  the 
Spirit  of  truth  "  I.  4  6. 

The  belief  in  a  final  day  of  judgment  is  thus  incon- 
testably  clear  in  S.  John's  writings  cf.  Rev.  20 12  13. 
Far  less  clear  is  the  nature  of  the  punishment  which 
is  meted  out  to  the  unbelieving  world.  S.  John,  whose 
interest  is  engrossed  with  the  positive  accomplish- 
ment of  salvation,  does  not  dwell  with  predilection 
upon  the  reverse  of  the  picture.  It  is  in  general  suf- 
ficient to  know  that  the  world  is  judged ;  this  judg- 
ment is  however  further  expressed  by  the  fact  that 
"the  prince  of  this  world  shall  be  cast  out"  12  31 
cf.  16  Ti.  Christ  has  ''overcome  the  world"  1633,  and 
S.  John  as  he  writes  his  Epistle  sees  the  world  as  a 


SALVATION  OUT  OF   THE    WORLD  139 

power  which  is  indeed  still  able  to  persecute  and 
tempt  the  Church,  but  which  the  Church  can  over- 
come through  the  superior  might  of  Christ  4  4,  and 
which  already  '*  is  passing  away  with  its  lusts  "  2  .7. 
In  his  parable  of  the  vine  Jesus  says,  "  If  a  man 
abide  not  in  me,  he  is  cast  forth  as  a  branch,  and  is 
withered ;  and  they  gather  them,  and  cast  them  into 
the  fire,  and  they  are  burned  "  15  6.  The  very  phrase- 
ology of  this  verse  recalls  the  saying,  likewise  para- 
bolic, of  Mat.  13  40,  according  to  which  the  gathering 
and  burning  of  the  tares  occurs  '*  in  the  consumma- 
tion of  the  age."  Both  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian 
view  of  the  last  judgment  represented  it  as  a  partition 
of  life  and  death,  and  "  the  resurrection  of  judgment" 
which  S.  John  contrasts  with  ''  the  resurrection  of 
life  "  5  29  would  seem  to  indicate  the  same  concep- 
tion. As  eternal  life  was  the  specific  gift  which 
Christ  brings  to  the  world,  we  can  hardly  conceive 
that  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  could  consist  in 
anything  but  the  deprivation  of  this  gift,  namely,  in 
abandonment  to  death.  This  would  seem  to  accord 
peculiarly  well  with  the  characteristics  of  S.  John's 
thought.  The  "  sin  unto  death "  of  which  S.  John 
speaks  in  his  Epistle  5  16,  refers  primarily  to  the  Jew- 
ish discrimination  between  sins,  the  legal  penalty  of 
which  was  death,  and  such  as  admitted  of  ritual 
atonement:  but  doubtless  S.  John  thought  of  the 
eternal  death  which  is  God's  final  punishment  for 
sin; — cf.  Rev.  21s  "the  second  death."  As  the 
immunity  of  believers  from  judgment  is  founded 
upon  the  fact  that  they  have  already  "  passed  out  of 
death  into  life,"  so  the  doom  of  him  that  loveth  not 
is  simply  expressed  as  an  abiding  in  deatli   I.   3  .4. 


I40  THE  LIFE   MANIFESTED 

The  condemnation  of  the  world,  so  far  as  it  concerns 
the  positive  completion  of  salvation,  is  satisfied  in 
this,  that  every  evil  thing  opposed  to  God  is 
abolished. 


4.   The  Election  of  the  Children  of  God 

We  have  seen  that  the  division  which  is  brought 
about  by  Christ's  appearance  among  men  results,  on 
the  one  hand,  in  the  dissolution  of  the  previous  cove- 
nant relation  of  the  Jews  by  their  own  re- 
God's  Election       .         .  /•    1        T»/r         .    1  t  -i  1 

jection  of  the  Messiah;  and  on  the  other, 
in  the  establishment  of  a  new  family  of  God's  children 
upon  the  ground  of  their  believing  reception  of  him. 
The  company  which  is  thus  gathered  together,  sepa- 
rated from  the  world,  and  drawn  to  God,  by  their  lov- 
ing reception  of  the  light,  is  nothing  less  than  a  new 
covenant  congregation  which  steps  into  the  place 
vacated  by  the  old.  They  also  are  Jesus*  *'  own " 
{^cf.  I  II  with  13  1);  and  being  his,  they  are  the 
Father's  possession  and  the  people  of  God  10  1426  29 
17  9  10.  But  no  people  can  by  its  own  choice  become 
God's  possession :  it  is  only  by  God's  free  grace  that 
men  are  called  into  his  fellowship.  It  was  a  maxim 
in  Israel  that  God  had  not  chosen  the  nation  on 
account  of  its  superior  excellence  or  might,  but 
because  he  loved  his  people.  It  was  no  otherwise  in 
the  new  covenant  relation :  it  was  Jesus'  choice  and 
not  their  own  which  constituted  the  disciples  his 
possession  15  16  19 ;  and  in  the  last  resort  it  was  God 
himself  who  separated  them  from  the  world  and 
brought  them  to  Jesus  176;  they  were  his  because 
they  were  already  his  Father's  and  were  given  unto 


SALVATION  OUT  OF   THE    WORLD 


H 


him  63739  10  29  172.  This  time  however  God's  elec- 
tion was  not  a  national  but  an  individual  one.  It  was 
indifferent  to  the  question  of  race  i  13 ;  the  Jews 
themselves  were  accorded  no  privilege  above  other 
peoples,  but  as  many  of  them  as  were  truly  Christ's 
sheep  were  "  put  forth  "  of  the  Jewish  fold  {iK^aXij 
10  4  cf.  934),  in  order  that  they,  as  well  as  the  children 
of  God  who  were  scattered  throughout  the  world, 
might  be  gathered  together  as  one  flock  under  one 
shepherd  10  16  1 1  52. 

Notwithstanding  the  individuality  of  God's  choice, 
S.  John  emphasises  highly  the  unity  of  the  flock; 
and  although  God's  people  are  thus  gathered  from 
out  all  the  world,  they  are  even  more  thoroughly 
sundered  from  the  world,  more  radically  contrasted 
with  the  world,  than  were  the  covenant  race  of  old. 
The  Covenant  This  we  have  briefly  discussed  under  an- 
Peopie  other  topic,  pp.   130  seq.     Because  they 

are  not  of  it,  God's  people  must  expect  the  world's 
hatred  1520;  while  they  are  in  the  world  they  must 
endure  persecution,  but  they  may  nevertheless  *'  be 
of  good  cheer,"  for  Jesus  has  "  overcome  the  world" 
1633;  — or,  as  S.  John  says  in  his  Epistle,  "  greater 
is  he  that  is  in  you  than  he  that  is  in  the  world  "  I.  4  4. 

This  separation  of  the  people  of  God  from  the 
world  is  not  a  nominal,  but  a  real  one :  they  are  not 
only  called  the  children  of  God,  but  such  they  are 
I,  3  I.  They  are  "  in  truth  "  what  the  people  of  the 
Old  Covenant  were  in  a  figure.  The  Christian  is 
God's  child  because  he  is  actually  begotten  of  Gud. 
This  relation  manifests  itself  by  ethical  likeness  to  God 
I.  229  3  9  4  7,  which  in  heaven  will  be  perfected  I.  3  ^ 
and   which   on   earth   constitutes    a   family  in  which 


142  THE   LIFE  MANIFESTED 

brotherly  love,  as  among  actual  brothers,  is  perfectly 
spontaneous  and  natural  I.  512.  Israel  was  called 
God's  vine,  Ps.  80  Jer.  2=1  Hos.  10  • ;  but  Christ  is 
"  the  true  vine  "  and  his  disciples  are  the  branches 
15  I  seq.  In  contrast  to  the  Jews  —  whose  worship 
was  nevertheless  an  intelligent  one  4  22  —  the  Christians 
are  "  the  true  worshippers,"  and  "  worship  the  Father 
in  spirit  and  in  truth  "  4  23.  Instead  of  the  figurative 
Temple,  Jesus'  body  is  the  true  Temple  2  21,  because 
it  more  really  represents  God's  presence  among  men. 
The  essential  importance  of  the  Temple  is  that  it 
represents  God's  abiding  presence  among  his  people. 
In  the  Christian  community,  as  in  the  heavenly 
Jerusalem,  Rev.  21  22,  there  is  no  temple  needed,  "  for 
God  himself  and  the  Lamb  are  the  Temple  thereof." 
Even  when  Jesus  has  ascended  to  heaven,  it  is  still 
true  that  God  is  in  the  midst  of  his  people  I.  4  4 ;  and 
the  idea  of  the  Temple  is  completely  fulfilled  in  the 
mystical  union  of  the  believer  with  God,  in  his  taking 
up  his  abode  within  each  disciple  1423,  of  which  we 
are  assured  "  by  the  Spirit  which  he  gave  us  "  I.  3  24 
4 '3. 

The  people  of  God,  who  in  reality  do  not  belong  to 
the  world,  are  sent  into  the  world,  even  as  Christ  was 
sent  into  the  world  17  'S;  and  for  the  purpose  of  this 
mission  they  must  be  sanctified  '*  in  truth,"  as  Christ 
sanctified  himself  17  '9.  They  are  to  be  a  holy  people, 
as  Israel  was  of  old,  set  apart  and  consecrated  to  the 
Lord.  This  sanctification  is  wrought  by  God  17  17, 
and  by  Christ  17  19;  but  it  requires  also  on  the  part  of 
the  believer  continuous  ethical  effort  to  preserve  him- 
self from  all  contamination  of  the  world  I.  3  3  ^.  152. 
Christians  are  engaged  in  an  ethical  struggle  with  the 


SALVATION  OUT  OF   TJIE    WORLD  143 

world.  They  must  keep  themselves  pure,  not  only 
from  idolatry,  but  from  every  such  relation  to  the 
world,  and  to  the  things  which  are  in  the  world,  as 
would  prove  essential  community  with  it.  They  may 
not  love  the  world,  nor  the  specious  pleasures  which 
it  offers,  ''  for  all  that  is  in  the  world,  the  lust  of  the 
flesh,  the  lust  of  the  eyes,  and  the  vainglory  of  life,  is 
not  of  the  Father,  but  is  of  the  world.  And  the  world 
passeth  away,  and  the  lust  thereof"  I.  2  i^ «;  The 
result  of  this  struggle  is  not  doubtful,  for  in  the  last 
resort  it  is  God's  might  and  not  man's  which  gains  the 
victory.  Christ  has  overcome  the  world,  and  his 
victory  is  the  ground  of  the  disciples'  confidence  16  33. 
The  victory  of  the  children  of  God  over  the  world  is 
grounded  in  the  fact,  that"  greater  is  he  that  is  in  you 
than  he  that  is  in  the  world  "  I.  4  4.  "  We  know  that 
whosoever  is  begotten  of  God  sinneth  not;  but 
he  that  was  begotten  of  God  keepeth  him,  and 
the  Evil  One  toucheth  him  not"  I.  5  'S.  It  is  clear 
from  this  last  verse  that  S.  John  cannot  think  of  the 
possibility  of  a  true  member  of  the  family  of  God 
falling  away  into  apostasy.  The  more  decidedly 
man's  relation  to  God  is  traced  back  to  God's  own 
choice  and  work,  so  much  the  more  difficult  is  it  to 
think  of  the  continuance  of  this  relationship  as  depen- 
dent upon  human  fickleness.  The  very  fact  however 
of  the  extension  of  the  Christian  community  in  the 
world,  brings  with  it  the  possibility  that  heterogeneous 
elements  may  mix  with  it.  Deceivers  I.  2  4  and 
deceived  I.  i  ^,  Christians  only  "in  tongue"  I.  3  '^, 
even  children  of  the  Devil  I.  3  >o,  false  teachers  and 
lying  prophet-^,  can  for  a  time  appear  as  members  uf 
the  communit)',  although  they  are  of  the  world,  and 


144  THE  LIFE  MANIFESTED 

finally  return  to  the  world  where  they  belong  and 
where  they  find  a  hearing  I.  4  s.  The  community, 
like  the  individual,  must  continually  purify  itself  from 
the  contamination  of  the  world  ;  and  S.  John  sees  in  the 
severing  of  these  false  members  from  the  Church,  the 
proof  "  that  they  all  are  not  of  us  "  I.  2  19. 

But  not  only  is  the  final  victory  assured  for  the 
children  of  God ;  they  are  altogether  kept  from  sin. 
Upon  this  point  S.  John's  statements  are  clear  and 
emphatic  enough,  but  they  seem  to  be  involved  in  a 
radical  contradiction.  On  the  one  hand  he  says: 
"  Whosoever  is  begotten  of  God  doeth  no  sin,  because 
his  seed  abideth  in  him,  and  he  cannot  sin,  because 
he  is  begotten  of  God"  I.  3  9.  It  is  only  in  appear- 
ance that  this  contradicts  I.  i  7-1°,  for  this  is  in  a  sense 
the  continuation  of  the  Baptist's  preaching  of  repent- 
ance, and  may  perhaps  be  referred  especially  to  sins 
committed  before  the  cleansing  by  the  blood  of  Jesus, 
which  is  received  upon  entrance  into  the  Christian 
community,  and  he  goes  on  to  warn  those  who  have 
become  Christians  against  sin.  This  requires  him 
however  either  to  leave  quite  hopeless  the  brother 
who  does  nevertheless  commit  sin ;  and  with  his 
absolute,  '*  He  that  sinneth  hath  not  seen  him,  neither 
knoweth  him,"  to  cut  him  off  from  any  communion 
with  God ;  or  to  point  out  to  him  some  still  remain- 
ing possibiHty  of  forgiveness.  This  latter  he  does  by 
pointing  to  Jesus  and  his  priestly  intercession  with 
God  I.  2  I.  Jesus*  sacrifice  was  made  once  and  for 
all  I.  2  2,  but  his  priesthood  is  perpetual  and  eternal. 
The  contradiction  which  is  here  involved  in  S.  John's 
expression,  is  only  partly  resolved  by  distinguishing 
between  sin  as  a  habit,  and  particular  acts  of  sin  (see 


SALVATIO.y  OUT  OF   TffE    WORLD  145 

page    1 10),    for    S.    John's  language  door,    not   con- 
sistently observe  this  discrimination.     For  S.John,  as 
for  the  Jews,  sin  is  transgression  of  law  (dvofiLa)  I.  3  1. 
The    Old    Covenant    discriminated    between   sins    of 
ignorance,  for  which  pardon    might  be  had   through 
ritual  atonement,  Num.   15  ^7,  and  sins  done  "with  a 
high   hand,"   which  involved  irrevocable   separation 
from  the  Covenant,  Num.   15  30  31.     So  also  S.  John 
distinguishes  between  the  wilful  (cf.  Heb.  10  26)  breach 
of  God's  Covenant,  which  irretrievably  forfeits   that 
eternal  life  which  is  to  be  had  only  in  the  Christian 
brotherhood,  and  sins  for  which  a   brother's    inter- 
cession may  still  avail  to  obtain  restoration  to  com- 
munion in  the  brotherhood,  and  to  participation  in 
hfe  I.  5  16.     The  distinction  is  however  not  quite  the 
same  in  the  two  cases,   for  the  Christian  Law  is  no 
longer  expressed  in  external  ordinances,  which  a  man 
might   in   ignorance   transgress ;     but    in    the    single 
principle  of  likeness  to  God,  of  love  ;  therefore  as  so 
inward  an    affair  that   it  is  at  bottom  impossible  to 
conceive  of  any  transgression  of  it  which  is  not  a  pre- 
sumptuous   breach    of  covenant,    a  manifestation  of 
radical  subjection  to  the  darkness  and  to  the  dominion 
of  the  Devil,  to  whom  all  hatred  is  traced.     But  sin  is 
a  broader  conception  than  this:   "  all  unrighteousness 
(dSiKio)  is  sin"  I.  5  '7;   every  instance  of  yielding  to 
the  temptations  of  the  world,  of  straying  from  the  way 
of  absolute  rectitude,  although  it  does  not  involve  a 
radical  deflection  of  the  heart  from  God,  is  sin;  — 
"  and  there  is  sin  not  unto  death."     This  is  explained 
symbolically  in  the  Gospel,  by  Jesus'  washing  of  the 
disciples'  feet:   "  He  that  is  bathed  needeth  not  save 
to  wash  his  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit  "  13  'o.     The 


146  THE   LIFE  MANIFESTED 

lustration  of  the  New  Covenant  cleanses  perfectly  and 
for  ever,  there  is  needed  no  second  bath,  but  only  a 
washing  of  the  feet  from  such  contamination  as  is 
inevitable  to  all  who  walk  in  the  world. 

There  is  one  instance  in  which  even  the  necessity 
of  confession  and  forgiveness  for  the  Christian  is  quite 
left  out  of  account.  In  I.  3  18-20  it  is  said  :  '*  Children, 
let  us  not  love  in  word,  neither  with  the  tongue;  but 
in  deed  and  truth.  Hereby  shall  we  know  that  we 
are  of  the  truth,  and  shall  assure  our  heart  before 
him,  whereinsoever  our  heart  condemn  us;  because 
God  is  greater  than  our  heart,  and  knoweth  all 
things."  In  the  consciousness  of  fulfilling  God's 
commandment  by  a  genuine  love  of  the  brethren,  the 
Christian  need  not  be  for  ever  perturbed  by  his  own 
conscience  convicting  him  of  particular  delinquencies, 
for  God  who  knoweth  all  judgeth  according  to  the  in- 
most disposition  of  the  heart.  It  was  in  this  thought 
S.  Peter  found  reHef,  when  after  his  fall  Jesus  examines 
him  :  '*  Lovest  thou  me?  "  —  His  own  heart  testified 
against  him,  accusing  him  of  denial;  but  in  the  assur- 
ance of  true  love,  he  appeals  to  the  superior  knowl- 
edge of  him  who  knows  all:  "Lord,  thou  knowest  all 
things;   thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee  "  21  15-17. 

We  have  seen  in  the  foregoing  how  readily  S.John 
applies  to  the  Christian  community,  the  ideas  of 
covenant  relationship  which  were  familiar  to  the 
Jews.  It  is  therefore  a  ground  for  some  surprise 
that  he  does  not  use  the  word  covenant,  nor  expressly 
contrast  the  Christian  community  with  the  Jewish. 
This  seems  to  indicate  that,  although  he  felt  for  him- 
self a  personal  necessity  of  constructing  his  theology 
in  the  terms  of  Hebrew  thought,  he  did  not  find  in 


SALVATlOiV  OUT  OF    THE    WORLD 


m; 


the  idea  of  the  Covenant  the  highest  expression  of 
the  salvation  brouglit  by  Christ;  and  tliat  in  this 
instance,  as  in  so  many  others,  he  avoided  the  use  of 
words  which  were  aHen  to  his  gentile  readers. 

How  unserviceable  this  word  was  for  the  expression 
of  the  idea  of  salvation  to  native  heathen,  we  can  see 
from  the  devices  by  which  S.  Paul,  Gal.  3  -s,  and  the 
author  of  Hebrews  9  .6  scq.  sought  to  adopt  it  to  their 
modes  of  thought. 

It  is  a  ground  of  far  more  surprise  that  he  also 
omits  the  name  which  designated  Christ's  disciples, 
in  their  organised  unity,  as  the  people  of  God.  The 
word  Church  {eKKXrjala)  occurs  only  in  the  third 
Epistle,  and  then  only  in  relation  to  the  individual 
congregation  HI.  6  g  10.  There  was  of  course  no  reason 
for  its  use  in  the  Gospel,  and  its  omission  in  the 
Epistle  may  be  an  accident.  At  any  rate  no  one 
could  lay  more  emphasis  than  does  S.  John  upon 
the  conceptions  which  were  most  fundamental  to  the 
Christian  idea  of  the  Church;  in  particular  upon 
the  unity  of  the  whole  brotherhood,  the  very  idea 
which  the  name  Church  in  its  universal  reference  was 
meant  to  express.  The  pre-eminence  of  the  Apostles 
is  also  clearly  recognised  1320  1516  17  is  20=1  I.  I3 
4  6  II.  10  III.  9  seq.,  and  it  is  recorded  in  20  -3  how 
Christ  bestowed  upon  them  plenipotentiary  author- 
ity; though  their  unique  function  in  the  Church  is 
more  commonly  referred  to  the  fact  that  they  are 
true  witnesses  of  the  historical  manifestation  of  Jesus, 
having  been  with  him  from  the  beginning  15^7  1935 
I.  I  1-5  .  As  however  it  is  God's  power  which  protects 
the  disciple  from  evil,  and  as  direct  fellowship  with 
him  is  the  highest  Christian  ideal;   so  too  it  is  the 


148  THE  LIFE   MANIFESTED 

distinction  of  the  people  of  the  New  Covenant  as  the 
prophet  foretold,  Jer.  31  34,  that  "they  shall  be  all 
taught  of  God  "  6  4s.  It  is  no  longer  necessary  for 
every  man  to  teach  his  brother,  for  the  Holy  Spirit 
directly  teaches  them  all  things  1426.  In  the  same 
way  it  is  said  in  the  Epistle :  "  Ye  have  an  anointing 
from  the  Holy  One,  and  ye  know  all  things  "  2  20. 
Even  the  Apostolic  teaching  is  not  indispensable  to 
God's  children  who  are  thus  gifted  with  prophetic 
inspiration  of  the  truth:  "And  as  for  you,  the 
anointing  which  ye  received  of  him  abideth  in  you, 
and  ye  need  not  that  any  one  teach  you;  but  as  his 
anointing  teacheth  you  concerning  all  things,  and  is 
true,  and  is  no  lie,  and  even  as  it  taught  you,  ye  abide 
in  him  "  I.  2  27. 

We  have  in  this  chapter  already  studied  a  number 
of  the  traits  which  mark  the  Christian  community  as 
God's  covenant  people;  but  we  have  still  to  note 
the  most  important  element  of  the  Covenant.  If  a 
company  of  sinful  men  gathered  out  of  the  world  was 
to  be  brought  into  real  communion  with  God ;  it 
could  be  accomplished  only  by  doing  away  with  that 
which  on  the  part  of  men  constituted  an  absolute 
impediment  to  such  communion :  with  all  impurity, 
and  above  all  with  sin.  This  obvious  condition  de- 
termined the  conception  of  the  foundation  of  the  Old 
The  Sacrifice  Covenant;  and  the  New  also  could  not 
^uiew^^°''  even  be  thought  of  apart  from  the  ideas 
Covenant  of  purification  and  expiation.     It  is  the 

more  necessary  to  emphasise  this  point  because  it  is 
frequently  asserted  that  the  idea  of  atonement  has 
absolutely  no  place  in  S.  John's  writings,  and  that 
Christ's  death  has  importance  only  as  a  manifestation 


SALVATION  OUT  OF   THE    WORLD 


T49 


of  his  love.     Some  even  of  those  who  admit  S.John's 
authorship  of  the  Epistle,  contend  that  his  emphatic 
representations  of  Christ's  death  in  the  aspect  of  a 
sacrifice,  are  merely  echoes  of  conceptions  elsewhere 
current  in  the  Church,  and  have  no  organic  place  in 
S.  John's  theology.     But   the   Gospel  too   furnishes 
very  distinct  expressions  of  the  objective  significance 
of  Christ's  death;   and  although  it  is  unquestionably 
true  that  the  idea  of  atonement  does  not  —  as  with 
S.   Paul  and  the  author  of  Hebrews  —  occupy  the 
foremost  place  in  his  representation ;   that  indeed  it 
recedes  before  the  predominant  representation  of  the 
moral   effectiveness  of  Christ's   revelation  ;   it   never- 
theless remains  the  sine  qua  Jion  of  fellowship  with 
God.     Jesus  is  not  only  Truth,  Light,  and  Life ;   he 
is  also  "  the  propitiation  for  our  sins"  L  2  2.     In  I. 
4  10  this  is  actually  represented  as  God's  purpose  in 
sending  the  Son.     And  when  in  the  preceding  and 
parallel  verse,  God's  purpose  is  defined  in  different 
terms  —  **  in  order  that  we  might  live  through  him  " 
—  it  is  clear  that  the  author  thinks  of  men  as  fallen 
into   a  state   of  death  through   their  sin,  and  saved 
from   this  judgment  by  Christ's   sin-offering.     With 
this  hint  we  see  the  significance  of  such  words  as  6  s', 
that  Jesus'  flesh  offered  in  death  will  give  life  to  the 
world.     The  world  is  in  a  state  of  death  on  account 
of  sin,  and  therefore  in  need  of  salvation,  which  in 
such  a  case  cannot  be  thought  of  apart  from  atone- 
ment 317  442    12  47   L  4«4.     And  if  we  have  a  right 
to  interpret  L  4  9,  according  to  the  following  verse, 
we  cannot  read  the  similar  saying  in  the  Gospel  3  16, 
without  a   reference   to    Jesus'   death.     At  any  rate 
there  is  a  reference  to  Jesus'  death  in  verse  14  of  the 


I50  THE   LIFE   MANIFESTED 

same  chapter,  if  we  may  interpret  it  as   S.  John  does 
the  similar  saying  1233. 

The  significance  of  Jesus*  death  is  thought  of  more 
particularly  with  reference  to  the  very  foundation  of 
the  New  Covenant  congregation.  It  is  not  only  the 
shepherd's  voice  which  gathers  together  the  scattered 
sheep  and  constitutes  them  one  flock  10  16;  the  lay- 
ing down  of  his  life  is  also  necessary  to  this  end 
10111517.  And  although  Jesus'  death  cannot  ac- 
cording to  the  terms  of  the  parable  be  represented 
in  a  sacrificial  aspect;  the  thought  is  expressed  that 
it  avails  not  only  to  save  the  life  of  the  sheep  from 
the  wolf's  attack  10  12,  but  to  give  them  a  more  abun- 
dant life  10  10.  How  important  this  conception  was 
for  S.  John  himself,  we  see  in  1 1  50-52 :  '*  It  is  expe- 
dient for  you  that  one  man  should  die  for  the  people, 
and  that  the  whole  Nation  perish  not.  Now  this  he 
said  not  of  himself:  but  being  high  priest  that  year, 
he  prophesied  that  Jesus  should  die  for  the  Nation ; 
and  not  for  the  Nation  only,  but  that  he  might  gather 
into  one  the  children  of  God  that  are  scattered 
abroad."  He  here  interprets  Caiaphas'  astute  counsel 
as  a  prophecy  of  Jesus'  death  as  a  sacrifice  for  the 
Nation,  and  more  particularly  as  the  covenant  sacri- 
fice which  constituted  the  scattered  children  of  God 
one  people.  It  is  likewise  S.  John's  own  interpreta- 
tion of  Jesus'  words,  which  represents  his  death  as 
the  event  which  draws  all  men  unto  him  12  32  33.  In 
17  19  Jesus  represents  himself  more  expressly  as  the 
covenant  sacrifice  which  consecrates  his  disciples  as 
God's  people :  **  For  their  sakes  I  consecrate  myself, 
that  they  themselves  also  may  be  consecrated  in 
truth."     In  view  of  the  fact  that  Jesus   has  already 


SALVATION  OUT  OF    Tl/E    WORLD  151 

entered  upon  the  way  to  his  death,  this  sa}in^  can 
only  refer  to  his  sacrificial  consecration  to  God  ;  and 
the  consecration  of  his  disciples,  which  he  thereby 
effects,  is  a  consecration  to  God's  possession  as  a  cove- 
nant people  (r/".  Hcb.  2  n  10  10  13  ■/).  This  is  a  con- 
secration "  in  truth,"  because  it  in  reality  accomplishes 
that  which  the  Old  Covenant  sacrifices  of  beasts  rej)rc- 
sented  only  in  a  figure.  Jesus'  death  as  a  covenant 
sacrifice  has  reference  solely  to  the  covenant  people. 
Although  we  have  seen  that  his  saving  work,  and  in 
particular  his  *'  propitiation,"  is  *'/<?;-"  the  whole 
world  I.  2  2 ;  it  is  effectual  only  for  those  who  stand 
within  the  covenant  congregation.  The  Old  Testa- 
ment idea  of  the  Covenant  was  essentially  that  of 
peculiar  and  exclusive  privilege:  the  New  Covenant 
was  likewise  exclusive,  though  only  those  were  ex- 
cluded who  were  self-excluded.  The  forgiveness  of 
sins  was  one  of  the  privileges  of  the  Old  Covenant, 
and  it  was  prophetically  promised  as  one  of  the 
special  blessings  of  the  New.  It  is  therefore  thor- 
oughly in  accord  with  the  Old  Testament  view  when 
S.  John  represents  that  only  he  who  by  wallcing  in 
the  light  has  come  into  fellowship  with  God,  and 
stands  thereby  in  fellowship  with  God's  people,  can 
enjoy  the  cleansing  of  his  sins  through  Christ's  blood 
I.  I  7.  The  same  conception  is  postulated  in  the  use 
of  the  Old  Testament  phrase,  "  faithful  and  just  " 
(TTfco-TO?  KoX  Sucato<;)  I.  I  9.  It  is  only  in  relation  to  the 
Covenant  that  God's  mercy  in  forgiving  sins  can  be 
characterised  as  an  act  of  faithfulness  and  justice; 
but  where  the  covenant  atonement  is  already  pro- 
vided, and  the  confession  of  sins  is  truly  made,  for- 
giveness is  simply  a  consequence  of  God's  faithfulness 


152  THE   LTFE  MANIFESTED 

to  his  promise  and  his  righteousness  in  observing  the 
covenanted  terms. 

Christ's  sacrifice,  like  the  sacrifice  of  the  Covenant 
in  Ex.  24,  was  made  once  for  all.  Moreover,  in  the 
Christian  dispensation  there  was  no  provision  of  re- 
peated sacrifices  for  recurrent  sins ;  for  the  purpose 
of  Christ's  coming  was,  both  by  his  sacrifice  i  29,  and 
by  his  total  manifestation  I.  35,  "to  take  away 
sins;  "  and  we  have  already  seen  that  for  God's  chil- 
dren, sin  and  the  sinful  power  is  already  radically 
overcome  and  abolished. 

It  would  indeed  be  strange  if  the  sacrificial  idea 
were  ignored  in  a  Gospel  which  begins  with  the 
Baptist's  witness  to  the  lamb  of  God  i  29,  and  ends 
by  representing  Jesus'  death  as  occurring  on  the  very 
day,  perhaps  at  the  very  hour,  when  the  Passover 
was  wont  to  be  slain.  It  was  Jesus  himself  who 
represented  his  death  as  a  covenant  sacrifice  of  atone- 
ment when  at  the  Last  Supper  he  took  the  cup,  and 
said :  "  This  is  my  blood  of  the  Covenant."  The 
phrase  is  clearly  a  reproduction  of  Ex.  24  8,  cf.  Heb. 
9  20.  S.  Mark  1424  adds,  ''  which  is  shed  for  many;  " 
and  S.  Matthew  26  28,  still  further,  "  for  the  remission 
of  sins."  S.  Paul  I.  Cor.  1 1 25,  and  S.  Luke  22  20,  unite 
in  calling  it  the  cup  of  **  the  New  Covenant  in  my 
blood ;  "  and  this  conception  was  firmly  rooted  in 
the  Church.  We  cannot  point  to  any  single  sacrifice 
of  the  Old  Testament  cultus  as  the  exclusive  type  of 
Christ's  sacrifice:  it  fulfilled  the  idea  of  sacrifice  in 
general.  It  was  in  particular  the  foundation  of  a 
covenant ;  but  many  of  the  sacrifices  recorded  in  the 
Old  Testament  besides  that  of  Ex.  24  were  of  this 
character.     The  Passover,  Ex.  13,  was  a  covenant  sac- 


SALVATION  OUT  OF   TIIK  WORLD  153 

rifice  of  earlier  date,  and  more  primitive  type  ;  and 
many  of  its  inspiring  ideas  have  survived  in  the 
Christian  Eucharist.  It  represented  not  only  a  na- 
tional, but  a  family  covenant,  and  like  every  covenant 
sacrifice  its  benefits  were  shared  only  by  those  who 
ate  it.  It  was  also  more  closely  a  type  of  Christ's 
sacrifice,  because  of  its  particular  reference  to  deliver- 
ance from  death.  S.  John  does  not  record  the  insti- 
tution of  the  Christian  Passover:  it  was  sufficiently 
well  known  through  the  earlier  Gospels,  and  through 
the  common  practice  of  the  Church.  But  Jesus'  dis- 
course in  chapter  6  s'-ss  is  an  indubitable  reference 
to  it:  his  hard  saying  could  not  have  been  com- 
pletely intelligible  till  after  his  sacrificial  death.  We 
have  already  observed  how  in  this  chapter  S.  John 
blends  the  subjective  and  objective  points  of  view : 
in  verse  40  it  is  ''  he  that  beholdcth  the  Son,  and 
believeth  on  him  has  eternal  life ;  "  whereas  in 
verse  54  it  is  *'  he  that  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh 
my  blood."  But  this  does  not  render  less  real  the 
reference  to  Jesus'  objective  sacrifice ;  it  is  rather 
this  element  which  is  the  ultimate  explanation  of  the 
life-giving  eft"ect  of  his  manifestation.  Here  too  it  is 
the  eating  of  the  sacrificial  flesh  which  conditions 
communion  with  Christ  6  56,  the  gift  of  eternal  life 
6  53  58,  and  resurrection  from  the  dead  6  54,  or  escape 
from  death  6  50.  It  is  true  that  the  idea  of  sacrifice 
is  not  only  blended  with  other  conceptions,  but  alto- 
gether raised  from  the  plane  of  merely  ritual  and 
legal  conception,  to  the  loftiest  mysticism;  but  it 
shows  nevertheless  how  fundamental  was  the  notion 
of  sacrifice  in  S.  John's  estimation  of  Christ's  work. 
We   have  still   to  speak  of  the  lustrations  orf  the 


154  THE  LIFE  MANIFESTED 

New  Covenant.  Ritual  lustrations  were  a  special 
feature  of  the  old  dispensation,  and  a  general  cleans- 
ing with  water  was  particularly  prophesied  as  a  pre- 
paration for  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  Ez,  3625.  S. 
John  lays  very  special  emphasis  upon  the  Baptist's 
mission,  as  the  preparation  for  the  Messiah  ;  and 
although  he  does  not  expressly  consider  the  char- 
acter and  necessity  of  S.  John's  baptism,  he  had  the 
less  reason  to  do  so  because  it  survived  in  the  Chris- 
tian practice,  and  was  therefore  a  matter  of  universal 
acquaintance.  He  does  not  however  disparage  S. 
John's  baptism  with  water,  by  contrasting  it  with  the 
spiritual  baptism  of  the  Messiah  i  26  31  33;  for  the 
same  form  was  continued  by  Christ  and  his  disciples 
3  22,  4  I.  Jesus  closely  associated  himself  with  the 
Baptist  3  II  when  he  spoke  to  Nicodemus  about  the 
ethical  cleansing  which  v/as  necessary  for  entrance 
into  the  kingdom  of  God  3  3  5.  This  baptism  was 
indeed  one  of  the  Spirit,  as  well  as  of  water;  but 
Jesus  nevertheless  classes  this  ethical  purification 
amongst  the  earthly  things  which  a  teacher  of  Israel 
might  be  supposed  to  understand,  and  which  he  him- 
self had  witnessed  as  the  fruit  of  the  Baptist's  mission 
3  10-12,  Necessary  as  it  was,  however,  the  cleansing 
with  water  did  not  involve  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
which  was  possible  only  on  the  ground  of  Christ's 
sacrifice.  This  difference  between  Christ's  purifica- 
tion and  that  of  the  Baptist,  S.  John  suggests  in  the 
Epistle  5  6-9.  Christ  came,  not  like  the  Baptist  **  with 
the  water  only,"  *'  but  with  the  water  and  with  the 
blood  ;  "  and  this  serves  as  his  witness  that  he  is  the 
one  to  whose  coming  the  Scripture  testifies.  For 
although  the  Scripture  testifies  that  tlic    Messianic 


SALVATIOX  our  OF   THE    WORLD  155 

era  must  begin  with  a  cleansing  with  water,  F>z.  36  rs, 
it  is  not  therefore  the  bringer  of  the  water  who  is  "  he 
that  Cometh,"  for  the  Scripture  also  testifies  to  a 
general  remission  of  sins  on  the  ground  of  a  sin  offer- 
ing, which  Jesus  made  in  his  blood.  This  explains 
the  interest  with  which  S.  John  notes  tlic  mingling  of 
water  and  blood  from  Jesus'  pierced  side  193135. 
Blood  I.  I  9,  as  well  as  water,  is  a  purifying  agent, 
and  we  are  almost  compelled  to  suppose  that  S.  John 
had  in  mind  Zechariah's  prophecy  of  the  **  fountain 
opened  for  sin  and  for  uncleanness  "13  t,  which  follows 
almost  immediately  after  the  phrase  which  he  quotes 
in  this  connection,  '*  they  shall  look  on  him  whom 
they  pierced  "  19  37  Zech.  12  10.  We  see  now  the  im- 
portance of  the  triple  testimony  which  he  adduces  in 
the  Epistle  5  7-9.  It  was  to  Isaiah's  prophecy,  par- 
ticularly to  chapter  53  {cf.  592').  that  the  Baptist 
himself  implicitly  referred  i  29,  to  express  the  con- 
trast between  his  own  mission  and  that  of  the  Messiah. 
The  Messiah  must  come  not  with  baptism  alone,  but 
with  the  blood  of  atonement,  and  with  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit.  It  is  thus  that  Jesus  came  :  with  the  water  of 
baptism  and  the  blood  of  atonement  he  brings  also 
the  gift  of  the  Spirit  737-39;  —  therefore,  "the  Spirit 
beareth  witness,  because  the  Spirit  is  the  truth " 
I.  5  7,  and  all  three,  the  Spirit,  the  water,  and  the 
blood,  agree  in  one  witness,  which  is  the  witness  of 
God  concerning  his  Son  I.  5  s  9,  as  the  Messiah  who 
comes  in  fulfilment  of  prophecy. 


B.  REALISATION  OF  THE  POSITIVE  CONCEPT 
OF  SALVATION  THROUGH  THE  REVELA- 
TION   OF    THE    TRUTH 

Under  the  general  topic  of  this  chapter,  The  Life 
Manifested,  we  have  thus  far  considered  what  is  in- 
volved in  the  very  fact  of  the  coming  of  the  Logos 
into  the  world  and  his  becoming  flesh :  the  judicial 
discrimination  which  is  effected  amongst  men  by  his 
manifestation  in  the  world ;  the  consequent  doom  of 
the  world,  and  the  election  out  of  the  world  of  a 
covenant  people,  who  through  Christ's  death  enjoy 
forgiveness  and  cleansing  from  sin,  and  access  to  God. 
These  considerations  have  to  do  predominantly, 
though  not  exclusively  (for  we  would  not  sharply 
draw  a  distinction  where  S.  John  does  not  draw  it), 
with  the  objective  aspects  of  salvation.  But  we  have 
already  remarked  that  the  preponderating  emphasis 
of  S.  John's  representation  lies  rather  upon  the  sub- 
jective appropriation  of  salvation,  which  also  is  the 
more  positive  conception,  because  it  deals  not  with 
what  man  is  saved  from,  but  with  what  he  is  saved 
to ;  with  the  positive  realisation  of  salvation  in  the 
children  of  God,  rather  than  with  its  mere  conditions. 
Eternal  life  is  the  key-note  of  this  section,  and  with  it 
we  consider  the  whole  range  of  ideas  with  which  it  is 
most  characteristically  associated.  Of  these,  the  first 
is  the  truth,  which  Christ  himself  revealed,  and  after 
him  and  in  his  stead  the  Spirit.  The  truth,  or  the 
light,  being  appropriated  by  faith,  issues  in  the  knowl- 


POSITIVE   CONCEPT  OE  SALVATION 


157 


edge  of  God,  which  at  once  produces  life  in  men,  and 
constitutes  an  essential  element  of  it ;  —  an  essential 
element,  but  not  the  whole  of  the  idea  of  life ;  for 
fellowship  in  its  triple  form  (with  Christ,  with  the 
Father  and  with  the  brethren),  which  is  as  we  have 
seen  brought  about  by  the  death  of  Christ,  and  yet  in 
this  connection  seems  to  be  more  directly  conditioned 
by  the  believing  reception  of  the  light,  is  the  chief 
element  of  S.  John's  idea  of  life,  and  the  very  fulness 
of  Christian  joy.  This  divine  life  in  God's  children  is 
both  manifested  and  tested  by  filial  likeness  to  the 
Father.  Christian  ethics  is  from  this  point  of  view 
the  spontaneous  fruit  of  the  true  life ;  although  it  is 
also  directly  conditioned  by  a  true  knowledge  of  God, 
and  displayed  by  imitation  of  him  ;  —  pre-eminently 
by  love.  It  is,  as  we  might  expect,  in  the  Epistle 
rather  than  in  the  Gospel  that  we  find  the  clearest 
and  most  developed  expression  of  S.  John's  own 
thought.  We  have  seen  that  S.  John  derived  his 
doctrine  not  only  from  Jesus'  express  teaching,  but 
from  meditation  upon  his  manifestation  as  a  whole ; 
and  though  this  is  pecuHarly  true  of  his  estimate  of 
the  significance  of  Jesus*  Person,  it  is  likewise  true  of 
his  conception  of  the  boon  which  he  bestowed  upon 
the  world;  —  of  that  eternal  life  which  is  appropriate 
to  the  Christian  community,  its  nature,  its  genesis,  and 
the  forms  of  its  manifestation.  This  is  not  to  deny 
what  we  have  already  repeatedly  noticed,  that  almost  \ 
all  of  S.  John's  characteristic  ideas  occur  also  in  ^^ 
Christ's  speeches;  and  in  general  we  may  say  that 
no  idea  emerges  in  the  Epistle  which  has  not  its  text 
in  the  Gospel.  But  it  is  perfectly  in  accordance  with 
the  nature  of  the  case  that  the  Epistle,  which  is  the 


158  THE  LIFE   MANIFESTED 

normal  expression  of  S.  John's  religious  conscious- 
ness, presents  his  own  theological  conceptions  more 
prominently.  The  ideas  which  we  have  to  consider 
in  this  section  —  the  Spirit  and  the  truth,  faith  and 
the  knowledge  of  God,  the  new  birth  and  eternal  life, 
the  Christian  fellowship  and  likeness  to  God  —  are  all 
of  them  common  in  the  New  Testament,  and  yet  each 
is  in  itself  and  in  its  associations  in  greater  or  less 
degree  peculiar  to  S.  John.  We  have  however  to 
guard  against  two  misconceptions  at  this  point.  In 
the  first  place  we  must  not  regard  this  scheme  of 
thought  as  though  it  were  a  system  complete  in  itself 
and  independent  of  the  more  objective  considerations 
we  have  just  been  studying ;  for,  though  we  have  here 
isolated  it  for  the  sake  of  clearness  of  treatment,  it  is 
not  thus  discriminated  by  S.  John,  but  is,  as  we  have 
seen,  associated  so  closely  with  the  purely  objective 
significance  of  Christ's  work,  that  the  same  fact  is  at 
the  same  time  regarded  from  both  points  of  view  (see 
page  iQseq.).  In  the  second  place,  we  must  not  ex- 
aggerate the  independence  of  S.  John's  thought  in  this 
particular ;  for  even  this  most  characteristic  sequence 
of  thought  has  its  root  in  the  Old  Testament.  The 
Son  of  God,  by  his  essential  likeness  to  the  Father, 
revealed  God  to  men,  and  so  placed  them  in  that  true 
communion  with  him  which  is  the  very  fruition  of 
eternal  life.  This  is  the  briefest  expression  of  S. 
John's  Gospel.  There  is  no  single  passage  which  so 
completely  sums  up  this  message  as  the  penultimate 
verse  of  the  Epistle,  "  We  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is 
comey  and  hath  giveii  us  an  understajiding,  that  we 
know  {^lavoiav  'iva  f^LvoiaKwiiev)  him  that  is  true^  and 
are  in  him  that  is  true,  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.      This 


POSITIVE   CO.VCEPT  OF  SAI  / 'A  TIOX  i  59 

is  the  True  God  and  eternal  life.''  This  saj'ing  is  how- 
ever in  its  most  significant  part  the  reproduction  of 
an  Old  Testament  promise ;  —  "I  will  give  them  a 
heart  to  know  me,  that  I  am  the  LORD  "  Jcr.  24  7. 
In  the  same  verse,  the  consequence  of  God's  disclosure 
of  himself  in  the  very  hearts  of  men  is  expressed  in 
this,  that  ''they  shall  be  my  people,  and  I  will  be 
their  God."  This  mutual  approach  and  appropriation 
on  the  part  of  God  and  his  people  is  virtually  a  new 
covenant  which  rests  upon  a  new  and  intimate  knowl- 
edge of  God.  And  another  passage  which  is  in  many 
respects  parallel,  Jer.  31  3'-34,  promises  expressly  the 
establishment  of  a  new  covenant,  in  place  of  the  one 
which  had  been  broken,  upon  the  basis  of  forgiveness 
of  sins,  and  of  such  a  knowledge  of  God  as  should 
make  his  law  an  inward  revelation,  written  upon  the 
heart. 

In  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  a  positive  relation 
of  men  to  God  can  come  about  only  by  his  revelation 
of  himself.  It  was  God's  revelation  of  himself  on 
Sinai  which,  more  positively  than  the  sacrifices 
there  inaugurated,  brought  Israel  into  covenant 
relation  to  God;  and  God's  covenants  with  the  Patri- 
archs rested  upon  a  new  revelation  of  his  Name, 
Gen.  32  29  Ex.  6  3.  Acco^ling  to^the  Hebrew  idea,  a 
name^ought  to  be  descriptive  of  the  essence  of  the 
object  named ;  and  it  is  on  this  account  that  the 
Name  by  which  God  reveals  himself  is  a  matter  of 
such  profound  significance.  S.  John  retains  this 
pregnant  Hebraism,  recording  Jesus'  profession  of  the 
accomplishment  of  his  mission,  "  I  manifested  thy 
Name  unto  the  men  whom  thou  gavest  me  out  of  the 
world"    17^;    and   his  prayer,   ''Holy  Father,    keep 


l6o  THE   LIFE   MANIFESTED 

them  in  thy  Name"  17  n.  The  Name  by  which  God 
has  made  himself  known  to  the  Church,  is  most 
adequately  expressed  by  S.  Paul :  *'  The  God  and 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  "  Eph.  i  3  Col.  i  3 
1 1.  Cor.  1 1 31 ;  and  S.  John's  idea  is  substantially  the  same 
when  he  records  that  unique  saying  in  which  Jesus 
made  over  to  hisdisciples  the  conception  of  the  divine 
paternity  which  he  had  hitherto  so  highly  exalted  by 
appropriating  it  to  himself:  "■  My  Father  and  your 
Father,  and  my  God  and  your  God  "  20  17. 

Old  Testament  prophecy  was  at  one  in  the  expec- 
tation that  the  Messianic  time  would  be  distinguished 
by  a  more  profound  and  more  general  knowledge  of 
God  Is.  II  9  5921  Joel  3  I  seq.,  so  that  all  being  taught 
of  God,  would  need  no  human  teachers,  Jer.  31  34;  and 
that  there  would  be  wrought  therewith  a  radical  moral 
change  in  the  Nation  Is.  i  27  2923  32  i  seq.  15  seq.  33  5 
Ez.  1 1  19  3625  seq.  Zeph.  312.  But  the  prophetic 
pictures  differed  very  distinctly  in  respect  to  the 
instrumentality  by  which  this  new  revelation  was  to 
be  brought  about.  Jeremiah  thought  rather  of  a 
quickening  and  deepening  of  the  religious  conscious- 
ness, which  did  not  require  an  actual  manifestation  of 
God ;  other  prophets  however  expect  such  a  reve- 
lation of  the  divine  glory  as  shall  surpass  even  the 
manifestation  upon  Sinai,  Is.  40  5.  The  inauguration 
of  the  era  of  salvation  will  unquestionably  be  God's 
own  work;  but,  as  in  the  establishment  of  the  Old 
Covenant,  this  may  be  accomplished  through  chosen 
instruments ;  and  therefore  it  is  a  prophet  that  is  ex- 
pected, Deut.  18  15  >8,  or  especially  the  Messianic  King 
who  shall  realise  God's  will  upon  earth  by  the  estab- 
lishment of  God's  kingdom,  jer.  33  1521.    The  diversity 


POSITIVE    CONCEPT  OF  SALVATION  i6l 

of  the  prophetic  pictures  of  the  coming  age,  explains 
the  variety  in  the  Messianic  expectation  which  Jesus 
encountered  among  the  Jews.  It  furnished  also  a  prob- 
lem for  Christian  theology  to  solve.  For  from  the 
beginning  the  Church  was  confident  of  possessing  in 
Jesus  all  that  God  had  promised  his  people ;  and  it 
had  therefore  to  show  how  the  diverse  lines  of 
prophecy  terminated  in  him.  It  is  S.  John's  distinction 
to  have  solved  this  problem  more  perfectly  than  any 
other  writer  in  the  New  Testament.  Me  represented 
Jesus  not  only  as  Prophet  and  as  King,  but  as  God  ; 
—  the  Word  of  God  become  flesh,  manifesting  the 
divine  glory  in  his  own  person,  and  thus  imparting 
the  vision  of  God  to  men.  The  advance  which  S. 
John  makes  from  the  revelation  which  Jesus  was  able 
to  impart  by  reason  of  his  perfect  knowledge  of  God, 
to  the  revelation  which  was  given  in  his  work  and  in 
his  nature,  the  vision  of  God  in  the  Person  of  Jesus ; 
is  —  although  it  is  not  without  analogy  in  other  parts 
of  the  New  Testament  —  the  most  characteristic  and 
the  most  precious  contribution  which  he  has  made  to 
Christian  theology.  The  preponderance  of  this  idea 
in  S.  John's  writings,  his  representation  of  the  saving 
potency  of  the  revelation  of  God  in  Christ,  which  of 
itself  regenerates,  sanctifies,  produces  eternal  life, 
establishes  fellowship  with  God  and  amongst  the 
brethren,  and  conditions  the  Christian  morality ;  is  so 
far  from  being  a  strange  departure  from  the  Old 
Testament  type  of  thought,  that  it  is  rather,  beyond 
any  other  representation  of  the  New  Testament,  the 
most  faithful  to  the  prophecy  of  the  Messianic  age, 
which  likewise  pictured  salvation  predominantly  in 
terms  of  the  revelation  and  knowledge  of  God. 


l62  THE  LIFE   MANIFESTED 


The  New  Birth  — The  Light  of  Life 

We  have  already  studied  the  significance  of  S. 
John's  definition,  **  God  is  light;  "  we  have  seen  that 
God  is  also  the  source  of  life,  and  that  the  Logos  who 
Christ  the  was  of  like  nature  was  therefore  the  light 

Truth  of  the   vvorld,  the  life  which  he  shared 

with  the  Father  becoming  the  light  of  men.  Keep- 
ing in  mind  these  fundamental  conceptions,  we  have 
here  merely  to  consider  how  this  divine  life  is  imparted 
to  God's  children ;  how  the  truth  —  that  is  the  reve- 
lation of  God  through  Jesus'  word  and  v/ork  —  being 
appropriated  by  faith,  issues  in  that  knowledge  of 
God  which  is  the  condition  of  eternal  Hfe. 

In  the  first  place  we  have  to  consider  the  relation 
of  Christ  himself  to  this  impartation  of  life  through  the 
truth.  We  have  only  to  rehearse  at  this  point  what 
has  been  more  fully  stated  in  another  place  (especially 
page  86  seq.).  We  have  seen  how  S.  John's  whole 
theology  turns  on  this  point ;  how  his  choice  of  the 
name  Logos  was  itself  conditioned  by  the  desire  to 
represent  Jesus  as  the  personal  revelation  of  God ; 
how  Jesus  is  the  Way  to  life  just  because  he  is  the 
Truth  14  6;  how  his  revelation  is  the  light  which  con- 
ditions life  8  12.  Jesus  himself  represents  his  mission 
in  the  world  as  essentially  a  "  witness,"  a  recounting 
of  the  "  heavenly  things  "  which  he  had  seen  with 
the  Father  3  "  '2 ;  and  it  is  his  "  interpretation  "  of  the 
invisible  I  »8,  his  *'  message  "  concerning  the  nature  of 
God  L  I  5,  which  is  for  the  Evangelist  the  chief  end 
of  his  manifestation.  Among  the  so-called  offices  of 
Christ,  it  is  that  of  Prophet  which  is  pre-eminent  in 


POSITIVE    COiVCEPT  OF  SALVATIOA'  163 

S.  John's  representation.  Jesus'  claim  to  he  King 
rests  upon  the  fact  that  he  bears  witness  to  the  truth, 
and  this  is  in  fact  the  very  end  and  aim  of  his  birth 
and  mission  in  the  world  1837.  It  is  S.  John  especially 
who  gives  us  information  about  the  popular  estimation 
of  Jesus  as  a  prophet  12125614  740.  The  Baptist 
witnesses  to  him  as  to  a  prophet:  "  He  whom  God 
hath  sent "  —  the  ambassador  of  God  par  excellence  — 
who  "  speaketh  the  words  of  God,"  and  like  every 
prophet  is  furnished  with  God's  Spirit,  but  unlike  any 
other  prophet,  "  not  by  measure  "  3  34.  It  is  his  pro- 
phetic function  which  Jesus  makes  prominent  when  he 
says,  "The  words  which  thou  hast  given  unto  me,  I 
have  given  unto  them  "  17  « ;  when  he  represents  him- 
self as"  sent,"  particularly  in  the  saying,  "  The  Father 
which  sent  me,  he  has  given  me  a  commandment 
what  I  should  speak  "  1249.  Jesus  speaks  of  himself 
as  a  prophet  4  44,  and  associates  himself  closely  with 
the  Baptist  3  n.  He  describes  himself  as  "  a  man 
that  hath  told  you  the  truth,  which  I  heard  from  God  " 
8  40.  It  is  thus  that  S.  John  carries  out  in  his  histori- 
cal representation  the  general  conception  of  Christ  as 
the  revealing  Word    and  the   light  of  the  world. 

Jesus  is  the  medium  of  life  to  the  world  10  is  17  j 
I.  49  5  II '2.  We  have  seen  that  this  is  along  one 
line  of  thought  particularly  referred  to  his  sacrificial 
death;  along  the  line  which  we  are  at  present  pursu- 
ing, it  is  referred  to  the  fact  that  he  is  the  revelation 
of  God.  He  is  the  medium  of  life,  because  he  is  the 
"  Word  of  life  "  I.  I  «.  He  is  the  life  manifested 
I.  I  2,  and  the  revelation  of  the  divine  nature  which 
in  him  has  been  brought  within  the  apprehension  of 
human  faculties  —  heard,  seen,  beheld,  handled  —  is 


1 64  THE   LIFE   MANIFESTED 

the  foundation  of  the  Christian  fellowship  I.  i  3,  and  the 
ground  of  Christian  joy  I.  i  4.  But  it  is  not  only 
the  total  manifestation  of  God  in  the  Word,  nor  the 
expression  of  the  divine  nature  as  light;  which  is 
life-giving  8  12,  and  conditions  Christian  fellowship ; 
Jesus'  several  sayings,  his  words,  are  also  life-giving 
{f}7]/xaTa)  66369;  his  commandment  is  eternal  life 
12  so;  and  abiding  in  his  word,  or  keeping  it,  insures 
deliverance  from  death  8  51,  is  the  condition  of  true 
discipleship  831,  and  of  fellowship  with  God  1423. 
So  also  in  chapter  10,  it  is  Jesus'  voice  which  draws 
together  the  scattered  sheep  into  one  flock  10  3  ^6  27. 
Jesus'  word  has  also  the  power  to  cleanse  15  3,  and 
this  power  —  as  indeed  every  other  which  is  ascribed 
to  it  —  is  due  to  the  fact  that  it  is  in  reality  the 
Father's  word,  and  that  it  is  the  truth  17  17.  It  is  the 
truth  which  sanctifies,  and  which  makes  free  8  32. 
Walking  or  abiding  in  the  truth  I.  3  19  II.  4  III.  3  4,  is 
the  same  as  walking  or  abiding  in  the  light  I.  i  7  2  10. 

The  knowledge  of  God  is  the  condition  of  eternal 
life  ;  and  this  is  what  is  meant  in  17  3 :  "  This  is  eter- 
nal life,  that  they  should  know  thee  the  only  true 
God,  and  him  whom  thou  didst  send,  Jesus  Christ." 
This  was  not  a  notion  strange  to  the  Jews,  for  they 
themselves  thought  to  possess  eternal  life  in  the 
revelation  of  their  Scriptures  (an  idea  which  has 
many  points  of  contact  in  the  Old  Testament,  Deut. 
32  47,  particularly  in  the  wisdom  literature,  see  Ps. 
1195093);  and  Christ's  assertion  was  to  the  effect 
that  /its  revelation,  as  the  only  adequate  one,  could 
alone  give  life. 

S.  John's  representation  reaches  its  highest  ex- 
pression in  6  40,  *'  that  every  one  that  beholdeth  the 


POSITIVE    CONCEPT  OF  SALVATIOX  165 

Son,  and  belicveth  on  him,  should  have  eternal  life" 
cf.  1245;  — just  as  in  the  case  of  the  serpent,  Num. 
21  8  (see  3  14):   He  that  lookcth  shall  live. 

We  have  hitherto  considered  the  vision  of  God 
only  as  it  was  manifested  by  Jesus'  bodily  presence 
The  spirit  of  upon  earth.  But  the  same  Gospel  whose 
''^^  earlier  part  treats  of  the  coming  of  the 

light  into  the  world  I  9  3  »9  I2  3S4S  treats  at  the 
end  of  Jesus'  departure  out  of  the  world  13  i.  It 
would  be  a  poor  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  which 
promised  an  enduring  covenant,  and  an  eternal  pres- 
ence of  God  among  his  people,  if  with  Jesus'  ascen- 
sion the  newly  given  vision  came  to  an  end,  and 
remoteness  succeeded  again  to  the  close  relation  of  fel- 
lowship with  God  which  Jesus  had  established.  Jesus' 
departure  from  the  world  was  in  fact  a  turning-point  of 
the  highest  importance.  The  sensible,  visible  mani- 
festation of  God  before  all  the  world  came  thereby  to 
an  end.  That  Jesus  was  the  light  of  the  world  as 
long  as  he  was  in  the  world  9  s,  signifies  that  for  the 
world  at  least  his  departure  was  the  disappearance 
of  the  light  and  the  closing  in  of  darkness  12353^. 
Hence  it  is  said,  "the  life  was  the  light  of  men,"  and 
"  he  was  in  the  world  "  I  410.  Jesus'  separation  from 
the  world  signified  therefore  a  judgment  upon  it 
1 2  31  16  10.  Because  the  world  has  neither  recognised 
nor  received  God's  revelation  17^5  I.  3  «  it  falls  back 
into  the  dominion  of  the  darkness  12  35.  The  illumi- 
nation which  is  experienced  in  Christ  is  however  an 
enduring  one  for  those  who  by  faithful  reception  of 
the  light  have  broken  the  bonds  of  the  darkness  1246 
8 '2,  and  become  sons  of  light   1236.     Yox  them  the 


1 66  THE  LIFE  MANIFESTED 

true  light  continues  to  shine  I.  2  8;  they  are  in  the 
light  I.  2  9,  and  **  walk  in  the  Hght,  as  he  is  in  the  light " 
I.  I  7 ;  and  so  is  fulfilled  in  them  the  promise  made 
concerning  Jerusalem :  "  The  LORD  shall  be  thy 
everlasting  light "  Is.  6o  20. 

Jesus'  departure  out  of  the  world  had  moreover  the 
effect  of  revealing  him  more  clearly  as  the  Son  of 
man  who  was  from  heaven  3  13,  and  of  removing  the 
causes  of  stumbling  which  were  due  to  an  imperfect 
recognition  of  his  nature  66162.  But  above  every- 
thing else,  the  **  lifting  up  "  of  the  Son  of  man  3  m, 
serves  to  make  him  accessible  to  the  faith  of  all  3  15. 
S.  John  is  perfectly  well  aware  of  the  double  mean- 
ing of  this  expression.  He  finds  in  it  indeed  a  hint 
of  the  mode  of  Jesus'  death  1233  1832,  and  so  de- 
rives from  Jesus'  own  words  a  proof  of  the  signifi- 
cance of  his  death.  He  also  sees  in  it  a  revelation  of 
Jesus'  veritable  character  and  dignity  8  28,  and  of  his 
love  and  obedience  to  the  Father  14  31.  But  above 
all  it  denotes,  according  to  its  primary  meaning,  his 
transcendence  of  earthly  limitation  and  elevation  to 
heaven,  whence  he  can  exercise  universal  rule,  and 
make  his  saving  work  eff"ectual  for  all  12  32.  The  de- 
parture from  this  world  which  is  accomplished  in  his 
death,  is  therefore  anything  rather  than  a  breaking  ofi" 
of  his  relation  with  the  world.  Only  as  the  one  who 
gives  his  life,  in  order  that  he  may  take  it  again  10  17 
1224,  does  Jesus  attain  to  the  universal  significance 
which  his  mission  demands  10  16  1 1  52.  Jesus'  reveal- 
ing work  not  only  continues,  but  in  becoming  more 
spiritual,  more  immediate  and  more  inward,  it  is  able 
to  lay  aside  the  restrictions  which  clung  to  his  earthly 
teaching    1625.     It  is   precisely  as  he    is  exalted  to 


POSITIVE    COXCEPT  OF  SAIJ'ATION  167 

heaven  that  Jesus  is  able  to  come  into  the  most  in- 
ward and  direct  relation  with  his  disciples;  —  "I  in 
them  and  they  in  me." 

The  conception  of  Jesus'  continued  influence  upon 
and  presence  among  his  disciples,  is  founded  upon 
the  idea  of  his  "coming  again,"  which  S.  John  dis- 
tinguishes, as  well  from  his  visible  rea[)pcarance  after 
his  resurrection,  16  16  scq.  as  from  his  final  return 
14  3.  Jesus  will  not  leave  his  disciples  orphaned,  he 
will  come,  and  though  hidden  from  the  world  he 
remains  for  them  an  enduring  vision.  His  unity  with 
the  Father  constitutes  the  ground  of  the  disciples' 
fellowship  with  God.  It  is  no  longer  /,  but  *'  We 
will  come  and  make  our  abode  with  him  "  14  1823. 

This  coming  again  of  Jesus,  and  abiding  forever 
with  his  disciples,  is  explicitly  rc*ferred  to  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  a  broader  sense,  in  the  sense 
which  was  current  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  Spirit 
of  God  was  said  to  be  bestowed  upon  Jesus  to  equip 
him  for  his  Messianic  mission  3  34,  cf.  1 1 31.  S.  John 
is  however  consistent  in  his  representation  that  the 
Spirit,  in  the  special  Christian  significance,  could  not 
be  given  until  Jesus  was  glorified  739,  cf.  202a;  and 
he  explains  Jesus'  earlier  references  to  the  Spirit,  as 
prophecies  of  that  which  was  to  be  given.  Accord- 
ing to  S.  Luke  also  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  belonged 
exclusively  to  the  exalted  Christ,  Luke  2449  Acts  2  y\. 
It  was  only  then,  Acts  i  s,  that  he  justified  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Baptist,  that  he  should  baptise  with  the 
Holy  Spirit,  Mark  i  s. 

Corresponding  to  the  importance  which  was  at- 
tached to  the  pouring  out  of  God's  Spirit  in  the 
prophetic  picture  of  the  Messianic  age,  S.  John  lays 


1 68  THE  LIFE   MANIFESTED 

upon  it  greater  stress  than  does  any  other  Evangelist; 
and  more  clearly  than  any  other  he  shows  what  con- 
stituted the  peculiarity  of  that  operation  of  the  Spirit 
which  was  the  special  privilege  of  the  people  of  the 
New  Covenant.  It  is  as  the  Paraclete  —  or  Advo- 
cate—  that  the  Spirit  is  most  characteristically  repre- 
sented by  S.  John.  The  fact  that  he  is  a  substitute 
for  Christ  is  pointedly  expressed  in  14  16,  where  he  is 
called  "  another  Paraclete,"  who  shall  be  with  the 
disciples  forever,  though  Jesus  separates  from  them 
167.  In  the  first  instance  quoted,  it  is  the  Father 
who  sends  the  Spirit  at  Christ's  prayer:  in  the 
second,  it  is  Christ  himself  who  is  the  sender.  As 
the  Spirit  is  "  sent,"  he  is  not  thought  of — as  Christ 
is  in  I.  2  I  —  as  an  advocate  with  the  Father  on  be- 
half of  men ;  neither  is  he  the  Advocate  or  repre- 
sentative of  Christ ;  but,  according  to  the  plain  sense 
of  the  words,  he  is  the  representative  of  God,  as 
Christ  himself  also  was.  This  therefore  is  the  signi- 
ficance of  the  Paraclete,  that  God  perpetuates  through 
another  representative  the  close  union  with  his  people 
which  they  had  enjoyed  in  the  presence  of  Jesus;  so 
that  his  dwelling  in  his  Church  is  unending.  And 
this  presence  of  God  is  so  much  the  closer,  because 
the  Paraclete  abides  not  only  with  his  people,  but  is 
in  them  14 .7.  Jesus'  departure  is  therefore  their 
advantage,  since  it  is  the  condition  of  their  reception 
of  the  more,  and  more  universally,  effective  Paraclete 
167,  who  shall  guide  them  into  all  the  truth  16 13, 
and  reveal  to  them  what  they  were  unable  to  bear 
from  Jesus'  lips  16  12.  There  is  even  a  beholding  of 
the  Spirit,  which  is  the  special  privilege  of  God's 
people  in  contrast  to  the  world  14 17. 


POSITIVE    CO  ACCEPT  OF  SALVATION  1G9 

It  is  this  conception  of  the  Paraclete  as  the  teacher 
of  the  truth,  which  constitutes  the  most  important 
element  in  S.  John's  doctrine  of  the  Spirit,  and 
which  brings  it  into  line  with  his  philosophy  of  sal- 
vation. Notwithstanding  the  mystical  note  in  S. 
John's  doctrine,  namely,  his  conception  of  the  Spirit 
as  dwelling/;/  the  disciples,  he  docs  not  represent  him 
as  operating  upon  the  will  in  an  irrational  manner; 
but,  like  Christ  himself,  through  the  reason,  by  the 
revelation  of  the  truth.  As  Jesus'  saving  work  is 
predominantly  represented  as  a  revelation  of  the 
truth;  so  likewise  is  that  of  his  substitute,  God's 
other  Advocate.  He  is  *' the  Spirit  of  truth"  1417 
1526  16 13  I.  46;  or,  as  it  is  said  in  I.  5  ^,  "the 
Spirit  is  the  truth."  As  the  Spirit  of  truth,  he  is  a 
witness  to  Christ  15  26,  and  a  guide  into  all  the  truth 
16  13 ;  and  under  whatever  name  he  is  referred  to,  he 
is  constantly  regarded  as  a  teacher.  In  1426  he  is 
called  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  his  work  here  likewise  is 
expressed  in  the  same  terms :  **  He  shall  teach  you 
all  things."  Even  when  S.  John  speaks  of  the  Spirit 
under  the  Old  Testament  symbol  of  an  "unction," 
the  effect  of  this  anointing  from  the  Holy  One 
(namely  Christ)  is  that  we  "  know  all  things  "  I.  2  2027. 
As  it  is  Jesus'  revelation  of  the  truth  which  is  vir- 
tually the  inception  of  eternal  life ;  so  is  it  only  by  a 
birth  from  above  by  water  and  the  Spirit  that  one 
can  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  3  5.  Revelation, 
spirit  and  life,  are  expressly  brought  into  connection 
with  one  another  in  the  saying  of  Jesus:  *'  It  is  the 
Spirit  that  maketh  alive;  the  words  that  I  have 
spoken  unto  you  are  spirit,  and  are  life"  663.  Ac- 
cording to  S.  John's  conception  of  the  Spirit's  work, 


I/O  THE   LIFE   MANIFESTED 

Christian  baptism  must  be  viewed  as  an  '^  illumina- 
tion ;  "  —  as  it  was  also  called  in  the  early  Church, 
after  the  analogy  of  the  gentile  mysteries. 

The  association  of  the  Spirit  with  the  gift  of  life, 
is  very  subtly  intimated  in  S.  John's  Gospel  under 
the  Old  Testament  symbolism  of  water.  S.  John's 
explanation  of  one  of  Christ's  sayings  as  referring  to 
the  Spirit  who  ''was  not  yet,"  739, — justifies  us  in 
seeing  this  reference  in  other  sayings  of  the  same 
character.  This  interpretation  of  Jesus'  words  as  a 
prophecy  of  the  Spirit,  is  connected  directly  with  the 
saying,  **  He  that  believeth  on  me,  as  the  Scripture 
hath  said,  out  of  his  belly  shall  flow  rivers  of  living 
water"  738.  And  S.  John's  interpretation  is  justified 
by  Is.  44  3,  which  was  probably  the  Scripture  Jesus 
had  in  mind,  and  which  expresses  the  pouring  out  of 
the  Spirit  under  the  image  of  a  pouring  out  of  water 
upon  a  thirsty  land.  It  was  however  directly  from 
Jesus  that  thirsty  souls  were  called  upon  to  drink  7  37. 
Jesus*  words  were  spirit  and  life,  and  they  were  there- 
fore 'Miving  water  "  4  10,  "  a  well  of  water  springing 
up  unto  eternal  life "  4  h.  This  thought  has  also 
another  association  in  S.  John's  Gospel.  Jesus'  body 
is  the  true  and  eternal  Temple  2  19  22,  which  can  in- 
deed be  destroyed  by  the  hand  of  man,  but  only  to 
be  raised  again  after  a  short  interval  by  God's  power. 
In  this  too  S.  John  sees  a  fulfilment  of, Scripture  2  22. 
For  what  the  prophets  foretold  of  the  Temple  in  the 
coming  age,  that  out  of  it  should  proceed  a  river  of 
blessing  and  life,  Ez.  47  1-12,  cf.  Joel  3  is  Zech.  148 
Ps.  46  4  Rev.  22  I  seq.,  is  fulfilled  of  the  glorified 
body  of  Christ,  whence  proceed  the  *'  rivers  of  living 
water  "  which  S.  John  interprets  by  reference  to  the 


POSITIVE   CONCEPT  OE  SAI.  I  A  710 A'  I  7 1 

gift  of  the  spirit.  We  can  probably  see  in  this  an- 
other reason  why  he  dwells  with  so  much  emphasis 
and  with  so  great  mystery  upon  the  flowing  of  water 
from  Jesus'  pierced  side  19  3435,  cf.  I.  5  f-s.  That  well 
of  living  water,  which  in  Jesus  had  begun  to  spring 
4 14,  was  not  sealed  up  by  his  departure  from  the 
earth,  but  chiefly  then  it  flowed  like  a  river  from  his 
exalted  body. 

Although  the  Paraclete  takes  the  place  of  Christ 
and  carries  out  his  work,  S.  John  does  not  intend  to 
represent  that  the  revelation  of  the  Spirit  makes  a 
material  advance  beyond  the  revelation  given  by 
Jesus,  or  that  any  other  is  in  the  same  sense  as  he 
the  mediator  of  truth  to  men.  For  as  in  the  Kpistle 
the  teaching  of  the  **  unction  "  is  to  the  cfi"cct  that  the 
disciples  abide  in  Christ  I.  227;  so  in  the  Gospel 
the  teaching  of  the  Paraclete  is  simply  a  witness  to 
Christ  1526,  a  calling  to  remembrance  of  his  words 
1426,  a  drawing  from  his  fulness,  a  taking  of  his 
things  to  declare  them  unto  his  disciples  16  14.  The 
Spirit  indeed  "shall  declare  things  to  come"  1613; 
but  his  principal  witness  is  to  the  past,  to  the  historic 
fact  of  Jesus'  manifestation,  and  his  witness  is  in  this 
case  co-ordinate  with  that  of  the  water  and  the  blood 
1.5  78,  and  with  that  also  of  the  Apostles  themselves 
15  26. 

Thus  Jesus  himself  remains  in  an  unique  sense  the 
mediator  of  truth  and  life  to  believers,  and  it  is  thus 
made  possible  for  those  also  "  who  have  not  seen 
and  have  believed  "  20  29,  to  enjoy  a  teaching  from 
God,  and  in  some  sort  a  vision  of  Christ. 

In  the  relative  independence  which  S.  John  as- 
cribes  to   the    Paraclete,  we  see   reflected   the    high 


172  THE  LIFE   MANIFESTED 

significance  of  the  Spirit  as  the  medium  of  revelation 
which  the  Jewish  theology  already  dimly  recognised, 
and  which  the  Christian  theology  expressed  in  the 
trinitarian  formula. 

Hitherto  throughout  this  study  our  attention  has 
been  directed  almost  exclusively  to  the  consideration 
BeUevingand  ^^  God's  ^ox\  in  the  salvation  of  men: 
Knowing  \M\\}i\  this  paragraph  we  begin  the  study 

,of  mans  part  in  the  process  of  salvation;  —  namely, 
I  /his  appropriation  of  the  divine  gift,  and  the  fruitful 
^^^^  consequences  thereof.  It  is  not  enough  that  God's 
(^ixjt^  work  is  accomplished ;  man  too  has  a  work  to  per- 
form. Salvation  is  primarily  the  establishment  of  a 
relation  between  God  and  man,  and  this  demands  a 
mutual  work,  because  it  is  a  relation  between  person 
and  person.  This  fact  is  very  obvious,  and  it  was 
moreover  thoroughly  recognised  by  the  Jews.  Jesus' 
speeches  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  deal  predominantly 
with  the  conditions  of  true  discipleship,  that  is  with 
the  terms  of  participation  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 
This  question  is  of  no  less  radical  importance  for  S. 
John :  the  condition  of  fellowship  with  God  is  ex- 
pressed by  walking  in  the  light,  abiding  in  Christ 
and  in  his  word.  The  way  however  in  which  this 
question  is  answered,  constitutes  a  very  marked 
contrast  between  the  Synoptists  and  S.  John.  Jesus' 
speeches  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  deal  chiefly  with  the 
significance  of  his  own  person;  but  this,  far  from  ex- 
cluding the  motive  which  was  predominant  in  the  Syn- 
optical speeches,  actually  expresses  the  fundamental 
condition  of  salvation  —  that  is  of  entrance  into  the 
kingdom —  as  the  believing  recognition  of  his  nature 


POSITIVE    CONCEPT  OF  SALVATION  173 

and  worth.  In  coming  to  receive  the  baptism  pre- 
liminary to  entrance  into  the  kingdom,  the  question 
was  from  the  Jewish  point  of  view  inevitable, 
"Teacher,  what  must  we  do?"  Luke  3  k>-i4.  The 
condition  of  remaining  in  covenant  relation  with  God 
was  the  keeping  of  his  covenant  Law.  Consequently 
Jesus  expresses  the  conditions  of  eternal  life  in  terms 
of  moral  conduct,  and  with  express  reference  to  the 
Law,  Mat.  19  16-21  Mk.  10  17-21.  But  Jesus'  conception 
of  law  was  so  broad,  s6  startling,  so  hostile  to  the 
legalistic  spirit  of  Judaism,  as  to  rouse  the  suspicion 
of  the  scribes.  One  of  them  therefore  pointedly  asks 
him  this  question,  "  Teacher,  what  shall  I  do  to  in- 
herit eternal  life?  "  "  tempting  him  "  to  entangle  him- 
self in  a  clear  contradiction  to  the  Scriptures,  Luke 
10  25-37.  This  same  question  recurs  in  S.  John's 
Gospel.  Jesus  interprets  Nicodemus'  secret  visit,  and 
his  acknowledgment  of  him  as  "  a  teacher  come  from 
God  "  3  I  2,  as  a  request  for  instruction  about  the  con 
ditions  of  entrance  into  the  kingdom  of  God  3  3  s 
and  he  answers  it  by  a  demand  for  moral  regenera- 
tion, which  however  is  traced  back  to  belief  in  the 
Son  of  man  3  is.  This  question  recurs  explicitly  in 
6  28, "  What  must  we  do,  that  we  may  work  the  works 
of  God?  "  And  the  ruling  conception  of  the  condi- 
tion of  life  and  salvation  is  conclusively  expressed  in 
Jesus'  reply,  "  This  is  the  work  of  God,  that  ye  be- 
lieve on  him  whom  he  sent"  629.  This  is  S.  John's 
way  of  disposing  of  the  question  which  so  engrossed 
S.  Paul  and  S.  James  (see  especially  Gal.  3  5  Jas. 
2  24).  For  S.  Paul  it  was  an  alternative,  faith  or 
works ;  for  S.  James,  faith  with  or  withcnit  works : 
for  S.  John  the  contrast  simply  did  not  exist,  he  had 


174  THE   LIFE  MANIFESTED 

made  no  such  analysis ;  faith  is  the  work  which  is 
required  for  participation  in  life.  With  no  writer  less 
than  S.  John  however  is  faith  viewed  as  a  work  meri- 
torious in  itself,  and  deserving  of  salvation  on  account 
of  its  moral  quality  as  an  act.  This  striking  saying 
of  Jesus  does  no  doubt  express  the  fact  that  believing 
is  more  than  a  passive  receptivity.  It  is  with  the 
labour  which  is  requisite  for  man's  earthly  sustenance 
that  he  compares  the  work  required  "  for  the  meat 
which  abideth  unto  eternal  life ;  "  but  on  the  other 
hand  this  is  a  meat  which  is  not  in  any  wise  to  be 
earned,  but  '*  which  the  Son  of  man  shall  give  unto 
you  "  6  27.  Christ's  gift  to  the  world  is  primarily  the 
revelation  of  the  truth ;  and  this  of  itself  produces  in 
man  eternal  life  and  its  consequent  fruits.  But  it  is 
not  enough  that  the  truth,  that  is  the  light,  shines 
tipoji  men  ;  it  must  be  received  into  them.  Inasmuch 
as  the  truth  which  Christ  reveals  is  not  a  bare  philo- 
sophical conception,  but  is  distinctly  within  the  moral 
sphere,  it  can  be  received  only  by  a  moral  act — by 
an  act  of  the  will  —  which  is  the  expression  of  the 
deepest  disposition  of  the  heart.  In  this  sense,  faith 
is  a  work,  it  expresses  a  positive  activity  on  man's 
part.  And  yet,  as  the  condition  of  salvation,  it  is 
regarded  with  complete  abstraction  of  the  intellectual 
or  moral  difficulties  which  have  to  be  overcome,  and 
of  the  active  element  of  moral  choice  which  it  in- 
volves:  from  this  point  of  view  the  question  is  simply 
whether  one  has  the  truth  ;  and  therefore  seeing  God 
and  knowing  him  are,  as  conditions  of  life  17  3  I.  3  6, 
precisely  on  a  par  with  believing  on  him.  So  far 
therefore  is  this  saying  of  Jesus  from  substituting  the 
work  of  faith  for  the  works  recognised  by  the  Law  as 


POSITIVE   CONCEPT  OF  SALVATION 


1/5 


conditions  of  life,  that  it  rather  does  away  altogether 
with  the  legalistic  conception  of  works.  The  antithesis 
between  justification  by  works  and  justification  by 
faith,  which  was  so  radically  important  in  S.  Paul's 
system,  and  which  proved  itself  so  peculiarly  liable 
to  misunderstanding,  simply  does  not  emerge  at  all 
in  S.  John's  theology.  This  is  not  merely  because 
the  idea  of  justification  is  completely  strange  to  his 
thought;  but  because  he  was  not  even  conscious  of 
the  rather  barren  analysis  of  faith  and  works,  which 
so  puzzled  the  readers  whom  S.  James  addressed. 
He  did  not  feel  the  antithesis  between  salvation  by 
law  and  by  grace.  He  had  not  passed  through  the 
spiritual  crisis  which  S.  Paul  experienced  in  turning 
from  the  Law  to  faith.  Therefore,  without  thinking 
of  the  Law  as  in  any  sense  the  antithesis  of  the  Gos- 
pel, he  expressed  the  Gospel  itself  in  terms  of  law  ; 
—  though  practically,  as  soon  as  he  had  come  to 
regard  Jesus'  revelation  of  love  as  the  Law,  and  as 
the  new  commandment,  the  Law  in  the  contemporary 
Jewish  sense  was  as  completely  done  away  as  it  was 
for  S.  Paul.  We  see  in  this  instance,  as  in  many 
others,  how  S.  John's  theology  resolves  the  apparent 
contradictions  of  earlier  Apostolic  teaching.  S. 
James'  discrimination  between  faith  which  is  accom- 
panied by  works,  and  faith  without  works,  was  simpl\' 
impossible  to  one  who  like  S.  John  conceived  of 
faith  as  imparting  the  true  life,  and  producing  the 
appropriate  moral  fruits  of  life,  just  in  proportion  as 
it  was  the  apprehension  of  a  true  knowledge.  S. 
John's  theology  did  not  suggest,  as  S.  Paul's  ditl,  II. 
Pet.  3  i6,  the  possibilit)'  that  moral  conduct  might  in 
any  way  be  divorced  from  the  idea  of  salvation.  Rum. 


176  THE  LIFE  MANIFESTED 

3  s  6  I.  His  system  as  a  whole  was  so  constituted 
as  to  render  transparent,  beyond  the  possibiHty  of 
misconception  or  of  cavil,  the  relation  of  faith  to  sal- 
vation :  it  is  simply  the  willing  reception  of  the  light 
of  life.  There  is  a  peculiarity  of  S.  John's  language 
which  serves  materially  to  prevent  ambiguity  in  his 
conception  of  faith :  it  is  that  the  word  faith  (Tr/crrt?) 
occurs  but  once  in  the  writings  we  are  considering; 
instead  of  the  substantive,  he  uses  the  verbal  forms, 
to  believe  (iriGTevuv),  and  for  the  negative,  to  believe 
not  (ov  Tncrreveiv).  This  is  notable  in  the  first  place, 
because  it  shows  his  close  attachment  to  the  Aramaic 
form  of  expression :  he  simply  translates  the  Aramaic 
forms  into  Greek,  though  he  also  makes  use  of  the 
rich  capacity  of  the  Greek  tense  system.  In  the 
second  place,  and  in  respect  to  the  point  which  espe- 
cially concerns  us  here,  because  he  thus  avoids  the 
ambiguity  which  was  almost  inseparable  from  the  use 
of  the  substantive.  The  substantive,  faith,  may  de- 
note either  the  object  of  belief,  that  is,  the  proposition 
which  is  believe^"Jude  3 ;  or  the  absolute  act  of 
belief,  without  reference  to  any  particular  object  (as 
commonly  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews).  S.  John, 
by  the  exclusive  use  of  the  verbal  form  with  a  dis- 
tinct reference  to  the  objects  lays  emphasis  neither 
upon  the  object,  nor  upon  the  act,  but  upon  the  fact 
that  the  object  is  appropriated  by  the  subject.  It  is 
true  that  he  frequently  uses  the  verb  absolutely,  as 
far  as  the  grammatical  construction  is  concerned; 
but  it  is  never  absolute  in  sense,  an  object  is  always 
clearly  implied,  and  the  more  obviously  because  for 
S.  John  there  is  but  one  object  of  faith,  namely,  Jesus. 
The  ambiguity  attaching  to  the  word  faith  is  exem- 


POSITIVE    CONCEPT  OF  SAr.VATlOX 


^77 


plified  in  the  sini^de  case  of  S.  John's  use  of  it  I.  5  4  s  : 
we  are  here  at  a  loss  to  decide  whether  the  faith 
which  overcometh  the  world,  is  the  creed,  '*  that 
Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God;  "  or  the  act  of  moral  sur- 
render to  him.  In  the  next  verse  however  S.  John 
returns  to  the  verbal  form,  and  disposes  of  this 
apparent  alternative  by  a  conception  which  in  a 
measure  includes  both  of  the  ideas  which  we  have 
suggested :  "  And  who  is  he  that  overcometh  the 
world,  but  he  that  belicveth  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of 
God."  The  orthodox  creed  is  not  a  victorious  power 
except  as  it  is  received  by  faith :  still  less  has  the  act 
of  faith  any  moral  significance  for  S.  John  apart  from 
its  object  Faith  in  Jesus,  if  not  precisely  a  virtue, 
was  highly  significant  of  a  man's  moral  nature ;  but 
faith  in  itself  was  not  a  virtue  for  S.  John,  and  he 
therefore  never  associates  it  with  any  distinctively 
moral  quality.  It  is  not  associated  with  patience, 
nor  with  hope  {viro^ovrjy  eXTr/?),  conspicuous  as  was 
the  development  of  these  ideas  in  New  Testament 
language.  With  the  exception  of  **  hope  "  in  I.  3  3, 
these  words  do  not  occur  at  all  in  S.  John's  writings 
(exclusive  of  the  Apocalypse) :  the  verb  to  hope 
occurs  once  5  45,  in  sharp  contrast  to  faith,  as  the 
characteristic  of  Judaism.  It  was  perhaps  because 
the  word  salvation  suggested  the  Jewish  attitude  of 
hope,  rather  than  the  Christian  attitude  of  faith,  that 
S.  John  avoids  its  use; — it  occurs  once  422,  "for 
salvation  is  of  the  Jews."  The  word  Saviour  occurs 
but  twice,  and  to  save  (with  reference  to  Jesus'  work) 
four  times.  I  have  consequently  been  in  doubt  of 
the  propriety  of  using  the  word  salvation  as  the  title 
of  two  of  the  main  topics  of  S.  John's  theology,  and 


1^8  THE  LIFE   MANIFESTED 

I  have  done  so  only  because  it  is  the  term  in  most 
current  use.  Salvation  is  moreover  a  negative  term, 
and  as  such  it  was  unsuited  for  the  expression  of  S. 
John's  predominantly  positive  conceptions.  He  sub- 
stitutes for  it  the  word,  eternal  life  ;  and  this  which  is 
not  only  a  positive,  but  a  present  possession,  is  there- 
fore not  the  object  of  hope  but  of  faith;  and  faith  is 
more  accurately  regarded  as  the  appropriation  than 
as  the  condition  of  life. 

Corresponding  to  the  ruling  conception  of  S.  John's 
theology  —  the  life  of  God,  being  manifested,  becomes 
the  light  of  men,  and  so  produces  life  in  them  —  the 
idea  of  faith  occupies  in  his  writings  a  position  of  the 
greatest  importance.  We  have  only  to  recall  what 
was  said  (pp.  130  seq)  of  the  division  wrought  among 
men  by  the  manifestation  of  the  light,  to  understand 
the  crucial  importance  of  the  idea  of  faith  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  The  ruling  motive  of  S.  John's 
narrative  is  the  representation  of  the  reception  which 
Jesus  encountered  from  the  various  classes  of  men 
with  whom  he  came  in  contact.  S.  John,  in  striking 
contrast  to  the  Synoptists,  represents  this  in  terms  of 
faith  :  they  believed,  or  they  believed  not.  Unbelief 
is  not  a  mere  negative  conception,  though  even  from 
this  point  of  view  its  consequence  could  only  be  death, 
because  it  foregoes  the  gift  of  life.  But  it  is  more 
than  not  knowing  God  ;  it  is  the  rejection  of  him  15  24. 
It  therefore  not  only  involved  condemnation  16  s  9, 
but  justified  it,  in  as  much  as  the  refusal  to  come  to 
the  light  argues  an  evil  life  3  'o  20.  We  have  already 
seen  that  for  S.  John  the  sin  is  "  that  they  believe  not 
in  me."  Believing  in  him,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the 
condition  of  a  begetting  from  God   i  >- 13. 


POSITIVE    CONCEPT  OF  SAI.VAIION  I  79 

The  foregoing  discussion  exhibits  tho  phicc  and 
significance  of  the  idea  of  faith  in  S.  John's  system. 
It  is  as  simple  as  it  is  fundamental;  and  ahhough 
S.  John  employs  this  conception  in  manifold  relations, 
although  it  is  a  progressive  term,  corresponding  at 
each  stage  to  the  believer's  subjective  appreciation 
of  the  significance  of  Jesus'  Person  and  the  content 
of  his  self-witness,  progressing  also  in  steadfastness 
as  well  as  in  content;  its  fundamental  significance  is 
nevertheless  throughout  transparent  as  the  acceptance 
of  Jesus  for  what  he  is,  and  in  particular  with  appreci- 
ation of  his  relation  to  God.  The  attitude  of  men 
toward  Jesus  is  expressed  also  in  a  variety  of  other 
ways,  though  faith  has  strictly  no  synonym  in  the 
New  Testament.  Men's  attitude  toward  the  light  — 
the  figure  under  which  Jesus  and  his  revelation  is 
represented  —  is  expressed  by,  receiving  it  or  not 
receiving  it  i  5 ;  by  coming  to  it  or  coming  not;  by 
hating  it  or  loving  it  3  2021 ;  and  even  by  believing  in 
it  123^.  We  have  also  the  expressions,  hearing  his 
voice  18  ^^  10  3 1^  (cf.  8  43  "  because  ye  cannot  hear  my 
word"),  knowing  his  voice  10  4  5,  coming  unto  him 
5  40  6  35  VI 44  45  65,  following  him  8  12  10  4  5  27  2 1  .9  ^2,  know- 
ing him  10  14  14  '7  17  3  (cf.  V.  25)  I.  2  '4  315  20,  seeing 
him  149  I.  3  6,  and  of  course  pre-eminently,  believing 
in  him. 

Jesus  as  the  object  of  faith  is  distinguished  from 
all  others  by  a  form  of  ex{)ression  which  is  highly 
significant  of  S.  John's  idea  of  faith  as  a  personal  and 
mystical  relation.  It  is  in  regard  to  Jesus  alone  that 
men  are  said  to  believe  in  (or  unto)  him  (ei?  avTo.').  It 
is  no  contradiction  to  this  that  S.  John  speaks  of 
believing  in  the  light  12  36,  for  the  light  is  Christ  him- 


l8o  THE  LIFE   MANIFESTED 

self.  It  corresponds  to  the  Aramaic  affinities  of 
S.  John's  language,  that  he  translates  the  common 
DIC^^  rOn  into  Greek:  iriareveiv  eU  to  ovo/jba.  As 
the  Synagogue  spoke  of  faith  in  God's  Name ;  so 
S.  John  speaks  of  faith  in  the  Name  of  Jesus  i  12  2  23 
3  18  I.  5  13.  The  construction  with  eh  makes  the  Name 
an  object  of  faith  in  precisely  the  same  way  as  Jesus 
is  himself,  for  the  Name  is  the  expression  of  the 
person.  With  reference  to  God,  the  construction  is 
not  so  uniform.  Either  with  the  name  God,  or  with 
such  a  paraphrase  as  "  him  who  sent  me,"  the  con- 
struction is  usually  the  simple  dative;  but  there  are 
two  exceptions,  in  which  Jesus  speaks  of  believing  m 
God.  In  both  cases  the  construction  is  determined 
by  the  fact  that  Jesus  would  represent  the  close  con- 
nection, we  might  rather  say  identity,  of  faith  in  him 
and  faith  in  God  1244  141. 

Even  in  relation  to  Jesus  however  the  simple 
dative  construction  is  often  used ;  but  in  these  in- 
stances wc  can  see  that  the  change  of  construction 
denotes  a  change  of  sense,  and  that,  ins,tead^f  the^ 
profound  New  Testament  idea^ of  faith^nd_belieying^^ 
we  have  here  the  simple  Classical  sense  of  giving 
credence  to  one"  4  21  ^46' F4r46~T6T7  38T4  n.  Belief  in 
Jesus  words  and  works  is  expressed  by  the  dative  ;  — 
though  we  have  in  one  instance  I.  5  10  tt.  et?  T7)v  fiapru- 
piav.  The  construction  with  on  (that)  is  not  uncom- 
mon; but  it  is  false  to  conclude  that  the  object  of 
faith  is,  therefore,  a  proposition  about  Christ,  rather 
than  Christ  himself;  for  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  the 
content  of  these  object  clauses  —  as  for  example  20  31 
••  That  ye  may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God "  —  is    always    a    proposition  which  ex- 


\ 


POSITIVE    CONCEPT  OF  SALl'ATION  iSl 

presses  in  the  most  essential  terms  what  Jesus  is,  and 
\  is  therefore  equivalent  to  a  dcfinitiQii  oLwhat  he  is  as 
I  the  objector  faith  ;  —  beheving  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ, 
the  ^n  of  God. 

We  have  finally  the  expression,  to  beh'eve  thrjough 
some  one  or  sorne_thing  {hia  tlvos  or  rt).     The  very- 
vision  of  Jesus  as  the  light  ought  to  be  sufficient  to 
elicit  faith:    but  inasmuch  as  men  are  able   to    sec 
only  gradually  what  he  is,  he  does  not  discard  the 
testimony  of  external  witnesses.     It  was  in  the  ^st 
'■'  place  through  the  Bapti^st  that  men  believed  in  Jesus 
-2^7;   it  was  then  Through  hisjworks  that  they  learned 
to  believe  in   him    10  38;    through   the  word   of  the  'S) 
Samaritan  woman  4  39,  men  were  led  to  a  faith  which 
is  afterwards  confirmed  through  his  own  word   1442; 
'^\  and  finally,  he  looks  forward  to  the  time  of  his  de- 
V     parture    from  the  world  when  men  shall  believe    in 
him  thrqugh^the  word  of  his  disciples  1720. 

Jesus'  whole  ministry  was  a  schooling  of  his  dis- 
ciples in  faith ;  they  attained  but  slowly  to  an  ade- 
quate appreciation  of  his  nature  and  dignity.  But 
even  an  imperfect  recognition  of  him  he  does  not 
call  unbelief,  but  faith.  Every  acknowledgment  of 
him  which  reveals  a  movement  towards  the  truth 
Jesus  greets  as  faith.  Even  the  Twelve  did  not 
attain  to  a  complete  knowledge  of  the  fulness  of 
Christ's  Person  till  after  his  resurrection:  it  was 
Thomas  the  doubter  who  first  made  the  adequate 
confession,  "  My  Lord  and  my  God  "  20  28.  There 
was  also  a  strengthening  of  faith  which  w^ent  hand  in 
hand  with  its  enrichment.  Faith  js  iiQt^jJ^amnient ; 
it^ is ^stxetching-  out-tawards  it.  S.  John  refuses  to 
consider  the  possibility  that  one  who  had   really  seen 


1 82  THE   LIFE  MANIFESTED 

and  known  Jesus  could  fall  back  again  into  sin ;  but 
no  such  finality  is  involved  in  faith  ;  it  might  not  only 
\exist  imperfectly,  but  cease  altogether ;  —  or,  as  in 
te  30-40,  turn  instantaneously  to  murderous  hate.  Not 
■even  does  the  faith  of  the  Apostles  continue  con- 
stant: to  their  confession  of  faith  just  before  the 
IPassion,  *'  By  this  we  believe  that  thou  camest  forth 
from  God,"  Jesus  answered,  "Do  ye  now  believe?" 
—  not  suggesting  a  doubt  of  the  reality  of  their  faith, 
but  denoting  that  the  hour  approaches  when  they 
shall  believe  no  longer  1630-32.  This  insecure  and 
changeable  faith  was  indeed  far  from  representing 
the  goal  of  Jesus'  training  of  the  Apostles.  It  had 
to  attain  to  a  fixed  and  unalterable  confidence;  and 
this  too  was  reached  only  after  the  resurrection.  _Tp 
expressdiis  faith  as^an_abiding  condition,  rather  than 
as  a  momentary  act,  the  ordinary  construction  with 
the  verb  does  not  sufBce ;  and  therefore  Jesus  uses  a 
substantive  expression  —  *' B^  not  .faithless,  but  be- 
lievin^  (/I^  cuttujto'^  dXka  irtaro'^)  -^  for  the  first  and 
only  time  on  the  occasion  of  Thomas'  recovery  to 
Faith  20  27.  With  faith  thus^perfectsd  in  content  and  j 
in  constancy,  the  first  draft  of  the  GospelJitlyLXuded.  ^ 

Closely  and  emphatically  associated  with  the  idea 
of  believing,  is  that  of  knowing.  The  idea  of  know- 
ing is,  corresponding  to  the  whole  character  of  S. 
John's  theology,  one  of  his  most  important  concepts. 
We  dare  not  ask  however  what  is  S.  John's  idea  of 
knowledge  ;  for,  as  in  the  case  of  faith,  the  substan-! 
tive  is  never  used.  The  object  of  knowledge  is  not  a^ 
proposition  about  God  (or  thrist),  but  the  person 
himself.  S.  John  does  not  speak  of  knowledge  about 
God,  but  of  knowing  him.     It  is  true  that  knowing,  \ 


POSITIVE   CONCEPT  OF  SAI.VATION  1 83 

like  belicvinj^s  is  often  expressed  with  an  object 
clause  (^ivoDaKeiv  on,  knowing  that)  ;  but  the  pro- 
positions which  are  thus  grammatically  expressed  as 
the  objects  of  knowledge  arc  in  content  identical 
with  those  which  are  represented  as  the  objects  of 
faith :  **  that  I  am  "  8  2^  "  that  thou  didst  send  mc  " 
1725  "that  I  am  in  the  Father"  1420;  —  as  these 
are  believed,  so  also  are  they  known.  The  prop-  / 
ositions  therefore  which  are  thus  expressed  as  the 
objects  of  knowledge,  are  such  as  define  the  essen- 
tial character  of  the  person  known,  and  S.  John's 
highest  and  most  characteristic  expression  remains 
that  with  the  direct  personal  object:  to  know  Christ, 
to  know  God  147  173  I.  2  4  «3  u  4678  5  20.  In  S. 
John's  highest  use  of  this  term  there  is  distinctly  a 
personal  relation  involved,  an  idea  of  acquaintance. 
How  far  he  is  from  thinking  of  a  mere  theoretical 
knowledge,  we  see  in  his  characteristic  employment 
of  eloou,  which  denotes  such  knowing  as  comes 
through  seeing;  and  of  Oecopelv  avrou  to  behold  him 
640  12  45. 

Believing,  so  far  from  being  contrasted  with  know- 
ring,  seeing,  and  beholding,  is  expressly  associated 
with  them.  The  multitude  demand  of  Jesus  a  sign, 
in  order  that  they  may  '*  see  and  believe  "  6  30 ;  we 
have  in  I.  4  '6  "  we  know  and  have  believed,"  in  6  ^'> 
"we  have  believed  and  know,"  in  10  38  the  disciples 
are  required  to  believe  in  order  that  they  "  may 
know  and  understand,"  and  in  640  we  have  "  he  that 
beholdeth  the  Son  and  belicveth  in  him."  These 
ideas  arc  however  by  no  means  synonymous,  and 
they  are  in  fact  distinctly  enough  discriminated. 
Believing  is  referred  pre-emine:rJy  to  Jesus,  whereas 


1 84  THE   LIFE   MANIFESTED 

the  relation  of  men  to  God  is  expressed  more  com- 
monly as   knowing  him.     The  profound  breach  be- 
tween the  world  and  God,  which  expresses  itself  in 
their  unbelieving  treatment  of  Jesu^,  is  not  called  un- 
belief in  God,  butignorance  ofhim  7  28  8  ss  15  21  163 
1 7  25,     The_result  wliich  accrues  from  knowledge  of 
Jesus  is  not  faith  in  God,  but  knowledge  of  him  8  19 
14  7.    It  corresponds  to  this,  that  with  reference  to  the 
Holy  Spirit  it  is  not  believing  which  is  spoken  of,  but 
I  knowing  and  beholding  1417I.  426.     Even  in  rela- 
tion to  Christ,  the  idea  of  believing  recedes,  and  that 
of  knowing  takes  its  place,  in  view  of  his  ascension 
and  the  consequent  beginning  of  his  more   perfect 
and  spiritual   relation  to  his  disciples.     Whereas  in 
view  of  hisearthly  manifestation  Jesus_demanded, 
( *'  believe  that  I  am"  824;   in  vie\y  of  his  heavenly  it 
!  is  said,  **when^  have^Iiii£djipJth£--SjaiLjDf  ji^^ 
(  shall  ye  know  that  I  am  "  8  28.     In  the  day  when  the 
disciples   behold   him  again,  "In  that  day  shall  ye 
I  know  that  I  am  in  my  Father  "  14  20.    It  is  also  highly 
significant  of  the  relation   of  these   two   ideas,  that 
while  there  is  great  emphasis  upon  Jesus'  knowledge 
of  God  729  8  55  10  15  17  25  there  is  no  mention  of  his 
faith  in  God.     This  is  the  more  remarkable  because 
Jesus  represents  his  own  relation  to  the  Father  as  the 
perfect  pattern,  according  to  which  that  of  his  disciples 
is  to  be  fashioned.     As  he  is  in  the  Father  and  the 
Father  in  him,  so  are  the  disciples  in  him  and  he  in 
them ;   as  he  knows   the    Father,  so    do   they  know 
him ;   as  he  abides  in  the  Father's  love,  so  do  they  in 
his ;   as  he  keeps  the  Father's  commandment,  so  do 
the  disciples  keep  his.     But  with  all  these  parallels, 
there  is  no  analogous  comparison  between  his  faith 


POSTTIVK   CONCEPT  OF  SALVATION  1 85 

in  the  Father,  and  his  disciples'  faith  in  him.  Jesus' 
relation  to  God  is  never  expressed  in  terms  of  faith. 
To  this  we  have  to  add  that  the  truth  is  represented 
as  the  object  of  knowledge  8  32  I.  221  though  not  of 
faith ;  —  and  so  also  is  love  I.  3  16. 

Both  of  these  conceptions,  knowing  and  believing, 
have  therefore  their  own  peculiar  sphere  of  applica- 
tion, and  the  mark  which  chiefly  distinguishes  them 
Iis  this,  that  beheyjng^  connotes  a.,  cliaracteristic  exer- 
cise of  the  win.  The  fundamental  idea^of  faith,  both 
in  Hebrew  and  in  New  Testament  Greek,  is  that  of 
trust.  This  has  by  no  means  disappeared  from  S. 
John's  use  of  the  word.  The  use  of  iriareveLv  in  2  24 
is  indeed  unique  ("Jesus  trusted  himself  not  unto 
them  "  )  ;  but  the  idea  of  trust  appears  very  plainly 
in  the  single  instance  in  which  we  have  the  expres- 
sion, to  believe  ///Gail,  tls  rbv  Q^ov  141.  Faith  is 
here  contrasted  with  trouble  of  heart  at  Jesus'  depart- 
ure. The  construction  (with  et?,  *' unto ")  is  here 
peculiarly  significant,  when  in  view  of  his  death, 
which  seems  to  render  him  unavailable  as  an  object 
of  faith,  he  urges  his  disciples  to  turn  their  faith 
towards  God;  —  not  as  resting  in  him,  but  as  strug- 
gling towards  him.  As  his  disciples  had  through 
faith  in  him  been  led  to  a  true  faith  in  God;  so  now 
he  hopes  that  their  trustful  faith  in  God  will  carry 
them  through  this  supreme  crisis,  and  preserve  their 
faith  in  him  ;  —  "  believe  also  in  me."  Faith  has  in 
this  instance,  as  in  many  others,  a  special  relation  to 
difficulties  to  be  overcome.  It  is  for  this  reason  that 
man's  relation  to  God  is  expressed  rather  under  the 
terms  of  knowledge  than  of  faith.  Whatever  difficul- 
ties a  man  has  to  overcome  in  making  a   personal 


1 86  THE  LIFE  MANIFESTED 

surrender  of  himself  to  God,  they  are  not  such  as  are 
represented  by  the  idea  of  faith.  If  God  is  known, 
he  is  therewith  manifest  as  man's  sole  good ;  and  the 
reasonableness  of  surrender  to  him  is  immediately 
included  in  the  very  idea  of  God,  from  which  might 
and  majesty  are  inseparable.  But  in  the  case  of  him 
whose  divine  majesty  is  obscured  by  his  earthly 
manifestation  in  the  flesh,  the  act  of  adhesion  is  im- 
possible except  through  an  act  of  trust,  and  more 
especially  on  the  part  of  those  who  on  account  of 
their  ignorance  of  God  have  many  inward  hindrances 
and  objections  to  overcome.  It  is  therefore  not  with- 
out its  significance,  that  the  first  man  whose  faith  in 
Jesus  is  mentioned,  is  that  Nathanael,  whose  preju- 
dice showed  itself  in  the  objection,  ''  Can  any  good 
thing  come  out  of  Nazareth?"  And  the  Gospel 
originally  ended  with  the  faith  of  Thomas  whose 
trust  in  Jesus  had  been  so  profoundly  shattered  that 
even  the  testimony  of  his  fellow  disciples  could  not 
convince  him.  The  victory  which  overcometh  the 
world  I.  5  4,  which  triumphs  over  every  inward  and 
outward  obstacle,  and  apprehends  the  Incarnate  One 
as  the  eternal  Word,  is  an  act  of  trust,  and  from  this 
the  idea  of  faith  gains  a  significance  which  differen- 
tiates it  from  that  of  knowledge. 

Eternal  Life 

"  And  the  witness  is  this,  tJiat  God  gave  unto  ns 
eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  his  Son  "  I.  5  ".  This 
verse  is  one  of  the  most  compendious  statements  of 
S.  John's  message  of  salvation.  To  understand  what 
eternal  life  is,  and  how  it  is   mediated   to   man   and 


POSITIVE   CONCEPT  OF  SALVATION-  I  87 

appropriated  by  Iiiin,  is  to  know  his  Gospel.  \Vc 
have  already  seen  the  profound  significance  of  the 
Father  as  the  source  of  life,  of  the  Son  as  the 
medium  of  life,  and  of  the  children  as  sharers  in 
the  divine  life  by  reason  of  the  divine  begetting. 
We  have  also  seen  that  life  —  or  at  least  deliver- 
ance from  the  common  doom  of  death  —  is  directly 
dependent  upon  the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ. 
The  gift  of  life,  as  the  positive  content  of  salva- 
tion, is  more  particularly  the  theme  of  the  chap- 
ter upon  which  we  are  now  engaged,  in  which  we 
have  already  considered  Jesus'  manifestation  of  the 
truth  which  makes  eternal  life  possible  for  men,  and 
man's  believing  acceptance  of  the  truth  which  is  the 
condition  of  his  appropriation  of  life;  which  also  we 
shall  conclude  with  the  study  of  the  moral  fruits  of 
life  in  the  children  of  God.  We  have  therefore  in 
this  section  to  consider  only  what  eternal  life  is  in 
itself,  and  in  particular  to  define  it  against  a  common 
and  radical  misconception,  which  represents  it  exclu- 
sively as  the  product  of  the  revelation  of  the  truth, 
and  its  fruition  therefore  as  consisting  solely  in  the 
contemplative  knowledge  of  God.  The  purely  intel- 
lectual and  speculati\e  interest  which  is  here  pre- 
sumed in  S.  John,  this  barren  abstraction  of  life, 
would  not  only  place  the  Apostle  in  irreconcilable 
contradiction  to  all  New  Testament  thought,  and  set 
him  in  close  association  with  Gnostic  theories,  but 
would  involve  an  intolerable  contradiction  in  his  own 
thought.  Nothing  could  be  more  objective  and  real 
than  S.  John's  conception  of  life  as  we  have  hitherto 
studied  it;  imparted  as  it  was  out  of  the  fulness  of 
the  divine  life,  and  guaranteed   for  men   by  Christ's 


1 88  THE  LIFE  MANIFESTED 

willing  surrender  of  himself  to  death.  We  have  in- 
deed repeatedly  noted  those  characteristics  of  S. 
John's  thought  —  the  close  association  of  light  and 
knowledge  with  life  —  which  seem  to  justify  the 
opinion  which  we  here  reject.  Misconception  of  this 
phase  of  S.  John's  thought  is  by  no  means  unnatural, 
but  it  rests  upon  a  superficial  idea  of  his  theology  as 
a  whole.  It  leaves  out  of  account  his  thoroughly 
objective  conceptions  of  life,  which  are  however  a 
part  of  his  characteristic  development,  and  can  in  no 
wise  be  explained  as  mere  echos  of  current  Christian 
language.  More  than  all,  it  fails  to  appreciate  the 
mystical  element  in  S.  John's  conception  of  faith  and 
knowledge,  as  a  personal  relation,  a  relation  of  fel- 
lowship with  God.  Knowledge  is  at  once  the  condi- 
tion and  the  privilege  of  fellowship  with  God ;  and  it 
is  in  this  communion;  and  not  in  any  speculative 
knowledge  about  God,  that  eternal  life  consists ;  — 
to  know  the  True,  and  to  be  in  the  True,  is  eternal 
life  I.  5  20.  Whatever  therefore  is  a  condition  of 
knowledge  and  fellowship,  is  likewise  a  condition  of 
life. 

There  is  no  conception  which  is  more  commonly 
noticed  as  a  Johannine  peculiarity,  and  probably 
none  which  is  really  more  characteristic,  than  that  of 
eternal  life.  The  term  itself  is  not  peculiar  to  S. 
John,  he  shares  it  with  the  Synoptists  and  with  the 
New  Testament  writers  in  general.  But  his  concep- 
tion of  it  as  a  present  possession  is  quite  unique  and 
can  be  paralleled  only  by  partial  analogies  from  other 
writers.  With  the  Synoptists,  ctprnal  life  is  a  prize 
to  be  hoped  for,  something  to  be  "  inherited ;  "  the 
commonest  expression  is  "  to  enter  into  life ;  "  or  it 


rOSITIVK    CONCKPT  OF  SA /.VAT/ON  I  89 

is  said  explicitly,  "  He  shall  receive  in  the  age  to 
come  eternal  life"  Mk.  103".  S.  John's  phrase,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  "to  have  life;  "  and  almost  the 
whole  Gospel  is  proof  for  the  statement  that  he  re- 
gards it  as  a  privilege  already  possessed  in  the  recep- 
tion of  Jesus  and  the  fellowship  with  God  which  is 
made  possible  through  him.  It  is  eternal  therefore, 
not  in  the  sense  that  it  belongs  exclusively  to  the 
coming  age ;  nor  even  in  the  sense  that  everlasting 
duration  is  its  dominant  note;  far  less  does  it  repre- 
sent an  indefinite  prolongation  of  man's  natural  life: 
it  is  eternal  because  it  belongs  to  the  eternal  sphere 
of  being,  which  S.  John  discriminates  from  the 
earthly,  not  according  to  the  category  of  time,  but  of 
place;  it  is  the  life  which  Christ  has  brought  from 
the  heavenly  to  the  earthly  sphere.  It  is  an  entirely 
new  gift,  superadded  to  man's  creaturely  and  physi- 
cal life;  it  is  therefore  an  intensive  conception,  repre- 
senting not  an  infinite  prolongation  of  life,  but  an 
unbounded  amplification  of  it ;  —  to  have  life  "  more 
abundantly  "  or  "  in  excess  "  10  10.  S.  John  does  not 
define  his  idea  of  life ;  but  strictly  speaking  he  gives 
no  definition  of  any  of  his  terms.  Particularly  such 
ruling  conceptions  of  his  theology  as  light  and  life, 
he  regards  now  from  one  side,  and  now  from  another, 
without  seeking  by  a  guarded  expression  to  define 
them  in  their  totality.  In  fact  the  significance  of 
these  essentially  symbolic  terms  lies  in  the  fact  that 
they  exceed  expression,  and  defy  definition.  As  the 
figure  of  light  represented  to  S.  John  the  totality  of 
the  divine  perfection,  so  did  the  figure  of  life  denote 
the  totality  of  the  blessings  enjoyed  in  and  through 
Christ.     As  surely  as  this  is  true,  we  see  the  inadc- 


I90  THE  LIFE  MANIFESTED 

quacy  of  knowledge  alone  as  the  definition  of  life. 
The  most  definite  proof  which  is  offered  in  defence 
j  of  this  definition  of  life,  is  173  *'  This  is  life  eternal, 
that  they  should  know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and 
him  whom  thou  hast  sent,  Jesus  Christ."  But  in  the 
first  place,  this  is  an  example  of  S.  John's  way  of 
regarding  a  conception  from  but  one  side  at  a  time ; 
and  in  the  second  place,  the  verse  is  not  a  definition 
even  in  form  ;  —  "  This  is  life,  in  order  that  they  may  \ 
know."  It  is  quite  as  apt  to  represent  knowledge  as. 
the  medium  of  life,  as  to  define  it  as  its  special  con- 
tent. This  however  is  not  to  deny  that  the  revelation 
of  the  truth,  and  the  consequent  knowledge  of  God, 
is  at  once  the  means  of  imparting  life  to  men,  and 
one  of  the  peculiar  privileges  of  the  children  of  God. 
This  is  sufhciently  clear  from  our  study  of  the  signi- 
ficance of  Jesus'  manifestation  in  general,  and  in  par- 
ticular from  S.  John's  conception  of  faith  as  the 
apprehension  of  the  revelation  of  the  divine  in  Jesus. 
Both  knowledge  and  faith  are  constantly  associated 
with  life,  but  chiefly  as  the  conditions  of  life. 

There  is  however  another  term,  which  properly 
comes  in  between  knowledge  and  life,  which  it  is 
the  more  important  to  notice  here  because  it  is 
so  little  regarded  :  it  is  the  term  fellowship.  Fel- 
lowship with  God  stands  in  a  close,  and  in  a  sense 
in  a  reciprocal,  relation  to  knowledge.  A  true 
knowledge  of  God  is  necessary  to  a  true  fellow- 
ship with  him ;  but  fellowship  with  God  cannot 
but  issue  in  a  fuller  knowledge.  On  the  other  hand 
it  stands  in  the  closest  relation  to  life;  like  knowl- 
edge it  is  a  condition  of  it,  but  it  is  also,  and  far  more 
adequately  than  knowledge,  the  fruition  of  it.     As  in 


rOSITIVE   CONCEPT  OF  SALl'ATION  1 91 

656  seq.  the  life  which  is  to  be  had  by  participation  in 
Jesus'  flesh  and  blood,  is  associated  with  personal 
communion  with  him  and  through  him  with  the 
Father;  so  in  the  Epistle  22425  "If  that  which  ye 
heard  from  the  beginning  abide  in  you,  ye  also  shall 
abide  in  the  Son  and  in  the  Father:  and  this  is  the 
promise  which  he  promised  us,  even  life  eternal  "  cf. 
I.  5  20.  So  also  in  I.  i  3  4,  the  message  of  the  Gospel 
is  the  condition  of  fellowship  with  the  Church,  and 
that  in  turn,  of  fellowship  with  the  Father  and  the 
Son ;  and  this  constitutes  the  fulness  of  joy.  Next 
to  eternal  life,  it  is  fellowship  with  God  which  most 
commonly  serves  to  describe  the  peculiar  blessedness 
of  the  children  of  God.  There  is  no  conception 
which  S.  John  develops  more  richly  than  this ; 
besides  the  expression,  "  to  have  fellowship  with 
him,"  and  the  whole  range  of  terms  which  represent 
God  (the  Son,  or  the  Spirit)  as  "  coming,"  and  as 
**  dwelling  "  among  men,  we  have  the  formula  of  mys- 
tical union,  "  being  in  him  "  and  "dwelling  in  him." 
As  Christ's  mystical  union  with  the  Father  is  the 
ground  and  content  of  his  own  life  6  57  14  10  19  seq.,  so 
must  his  corresponding  communion  with  his  disciples 
impart  to  them  the  same  life  which  he  possesses 
through  the  Father's  abiding  in  him.  It  is  for  this 
reason  that  eternal  life  may  be  said  to  be  derived 
from  the  knowledge  of  God,  because  such  knowletlge 
is  a  condition  of  communion  with  God.  The  revela- 
tion of  the  truth  in  Jesus  is  therefore  life,  because  it 
is  the  way  to  the  Father  14  6. 

It  is  accordant  with  the  whole  range  of  S.  John's 
thought  that  he  thus  represents  eternal  life  as  a  present 
possession:    for   he    likewise    represented    all    of   the 


192  THE   LIFE   MANIFESTED 

blessings  of  the  New  Covenant  as  already  realised,  at 
least  in  germ,  with  the  coming  of  Christ;  —  and  in 
this  too  he  is  completely  in  accord  with  the  Synoptical 
saying,  "  The  kingdom  of  God  is  in  the  midst  of  you  " 
Lk.  17  21  cf.  Mat.  1228.  Slight  however  as  is  his 
emphasis  upon  the  developments  of  the  coming  age, 
S.  John  could  not  altogether  avoid  reference  to  the 
eschatological  bearing  of  his  idea  of  eternal  life.  This 
reference  is  seen  especially  in  12  25,  "  He  who  hateth 
his  life  in  this  world  shall  save  it  unto  life  eternal." 
Through  this  expression,  characteristic  as  it  is  of 
S.  John,  there  glimmers  the  familiar  Synoptic  con- 
trast between  the  two  worlds.  In  antithesis  to  **  this 
world,"  eternal  life  here  represents  the  future  world. 
If  we  are  right  in  this,  we  may  see  the  same  reference 
in  6  27 ;  "  The  meat  which  abideth  unto  eternal  life ;  " 
and  in  4  14  "  A  well  of  water  springing  up  unto  eternal 
life;  "  and  finally  in  436  ''  He  who  reapeth  gathereth 
fruit  unto  life  eternal."  In  Synoptic  language  this 
last  would  be  expressed  as  a  harvesting  for  the 
kingdom  of  God. 

This  eternal  life  which  is  enjoyed  in  communion 
with  the  Father  through  the  Son,  which  is  in  fact  a 
participation  in  the  divine  life,  cannot  of  course  be 
thought  of  as  subject  to  decay  or  death.  Therefore 
in  the  sixth  chapter,  quite  parallel  to  the  expression, 
"  He  that  eateth  my  flesh  hath  eternal  life  "  6  54,  we 
have,  "  If  any  man  eat  this  bread,  he  shall  live  for 
ever  "  6  s'  58,  and,  "  that  a  man  may  eat  thereof,  and 
not  die  "  6  5°.  Eternal  life  has  in  itself  the  potency 
of  continuous  existence,  it  is  indifferent  to  death  and 
the  dissolution  of  the  body,  and  is  the  earnest  of  an 
everlasting  existence  in  plenitude  of  life.     Therefore 


POSITIVE    CONCEJ'T  OF  SALVATION  193 

it  is  said,  "  He  that  bclievcth  on  mc,  thouc[h  he  flic, 
yet  shall  he  live  "  1 1  25.  But  as  the  resurrection  of 
the  body  is,  in  Hebrew  and  in  New  Testament 
thought,  essential  to  the  full  fruition  of  life,  and  as 
this  is  not  given  in  the  idea  of  eternal  life  itself,  it  is 
therefore  added  as  an  independent  conception:  "  For 
this  is  the  will  of  my  Father,  that  every  one  that  be- 
holdeth  the  Son,  and  believeth  on  him,  should  have 
eternal  life;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day  " 
6  40  cf.  39  54.  And  whereas  in  6  57  the  life  of  the  believer 
is  represented  as  depending  upon  Christ's  possession 
of  life  from  the  Feather;  in  14  19  the  believer's  continu- 
ance in  life  is  assured  by  Christ's  triumph  over  death. 
The  consideration  of  the  consummation  of  life  in 
the  coming  age  was  of  the  less  importance  for  S.  John 
because  he  conceived  of  it  as  effecting  no  change 
which  was  not  in  the  nature  of  a  mere  development 
of  that  which  the  believer  already  possessed.  "  He 
that  believeth  cometh  not  into  judgment,  but  hath 
passed  from  death  unto  life  "  5  24  cf.  I.  3  '4.  We  can 
however  understand  how  from  this  point  of  view 
S.  John  can  speak  of  life  as  a  present  possession,  and 
yet  in  the  expression  "the  resurrection  of  life"  5  ^o 
add  a  completing  idea.  As  he  enjoyed  eternal  life 
in  communion  with  God,  and  refers  this  in  turn  to 
knowledge  of  God,  we  have  the  double  consequence : 
that  wherever  there  is  faith  in  Christ  as  the  Son  of 
God,  there  is  eternal  life;  but  that  as  faith  grows 
riper,  and  knowledge  deeper,  the  possession  and 
fruition  of  that  life  becomes  ever  fuller  and  richer. 
From  the  knowledge  which  is  by  faith,  to  that  which 
consists  in  beholding  God  1734  I.  32,  there  is  indeed 
such  a  progress   in  the  attainment  of  the  perfected 


194  THE  LIFE   MANIFESTED 

life  as  makes  it  appear  almost  a  new  possession ;  — 
though  even  here  we  have  not  to  think  of  a  higher 
life  taking  the  place  of  a  lower,  but  eternal  life  is  in 
its  very  conception  the  same  heavenly  blessing,  above 
and  below,  for  ever. 

The  Children  of  God  —  Fellowship 

We  have  already  had  occasion  to  note,  several 
times,  and  from  various  points  of  view,  S.  John's  em- 
Tneoiogyand  phasis  upon  the  idea  of  fellowship  in  its 
EtMcs  double  form  ;  —  with  the  Father  and  the 

Son,  and  with  the  brethren.  These  two  aspects  of  the 
Christian  fellowship  are  not  separable  even  in  thought : 
*'  that  they  may  all  be  one ;  even  as  thou,  Father, 
art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  in  us  " 
1721.  It  is  one  indivisible  fellowship;  and  while  on 
the  one  hand  a  man  can  remain  in  this  community 
only  by  abiding  in  Christ,  the  vine  156;  it  is  on  the 
other  hand  no  less  truly  a  condition  of  fellowship 
with  God,  that  the  fellowship  of  believers  with  one 
another  be  realised  by  observing  the  commandment 
of  brotherly  love  I.  3  24.  This  is  justified  by  the  con- 
sideration, "  He  that  loveth  not  his  brother  whom  he 
hath  seen,  how  can  he  love  God  whom  he  hath  not 
seen?"  I.  420.  The  idea  of  children  of  God  includes 
two  moments  of  thought :  the  filial  and  the  brotherly 
relationship.  From  S.  John's  emphasis  upon  the 
latter  we  may  see  how  far  he  was  from  regarding 
eternal  life  as  the  mere  contemplative  knowledge  of 
God.  It  is  a  life  which  is  to  be  exercised  in  the 
sphere  of  the  Christian  brotherhood,  and  it  finds  its 
satisfaction  in  the   fellowship  with  the    brethren,  as 


POSITIVE    CONCEPT  OF  SALVATIOxV  195 

well  as  in  the  fellowship  with  God.  The  Christian 
fellowship  and  eternal  life  arc  the  two  ideas  into 
which  S.  John  has  analysed  the  kingdom  of  God  :  as 
eternal  life  represents  the  blessings  of  the  kingdom  ; 
so  does  the  brotherhood  represent  its  sphere.  Love, 
the  principle  of  fellowship,  directed  towards  the  Father 
and  towards  the  brethren,  is  the  complete  expression 
of  the  moral  life,  the  fulfilment  of  the  law  of  the  king- 
dom. It  is  at  once  the  privilege  and  the  duty  of 
fellowship.  Love  is  indeed  regarded  as  a  command- 
ment; but  more  characteristically  as  the  spontaneous 
fruit  of  the  true  life.  As  the  Father  is  love,  and  as 
the  Son  has  manifested  this  love  to  the  world ;  the 
life  which  he  thereby  imparts  to  men  can  be  nothing 
else  but  a  life  of  love.  Likeness  of  the  children  to 
the  Father,  filial  and  brotherly  affection,  is  the  conse- 
quence of  their  begetting  from  God,  and  the  natural 
expression  of  their  condition  as  children.  Love  is 
therefore  the  test  of  the  presence  of  true  life  in  man  ; 
and  in  the  assurance  of  meeting  this  test,  lies  the  filial 
confidence  which  casts  out  all  fear. 

The  above  paragraph  is  a  brief  rehearsal  of  the 
points  with  which  we  have  to  deal  in  this  chapter. 
It  exhibits  the  relation  of  the  Johannine  theology  to 
the  Johannine  ethics.     With  no  other  writer  in  the 

New  Testament  is  the  relation  of  theology 

Likeness  to  God    .       ..^  ^  ^  1..  1 

to  life  so  transparent,  so  mimediate,  and 

so  necessary.     It  is  chiefly  in  the   Epistle   that  the 

ethical  bearing  of  S.  John's   doctrine  is  expressed : 

S.  John's  ethics  is  the  blossoming  out  in  the  moral 

sphere    of  the   fundamental   ideas    of  his    theology. 

The   strongest  proof  of  the   common  authorship  of 

the  Gospel  and  Epistle  is  the  fact  that  the  latter  is 


196  THE  LIFE   MAxYIFESTED 

the  necessary  moral  consequence  of  the  former.  S. 
John's  whole  system  is  in  the  highest  sense  practical, 
and  it  is  capable  of  being  brought  to  bear  with  un- 
matched force  upon  every  individual  problem  of  the 
moral  life.  S.  John  however  does  not  descend  to 
particulars :  as  in  his  Gospel  he  sums  up  his  theology 
in  a  few  general  ideas,  so  in  his  Epistle  he  dwells 
upon  the  great  central  conceptions  of  morality.  The 
I  Christian  morality  is  summed  up  in  the  idea  of  like- 
;  ness  to  Jesus,  which  is  the  same  thing  as  likeness  to 
.  God,  and  is  expressed  particularly  by  love.  S.  John 
does  not  extol  love  more  highly  than  S.  Paul ;  it  is 
rather  because  he  includes  under  this  one  term  the 
whole  catalogue  of  Christian  virtues,  that  he  has 
received  the  name,  Apostle  of  love.  Notwithstand- 
ing his  strong  emphasis  upon  the  moral  walk,  he 
mentions  in  the  Epistle  but  one  concrete  case  of 
conduct:  "But  whoso  hath  this  world's  goods,  and 
beholdeth  his  brother  in  need,  and  shutteth  up  his 
compassion  from  him,  how  doth  the  love  of  God 
abide  in  him?  "  1.  3  17.  This  example  serves  to  dis- 
play  the  discrepancy  between  love  which  is  only  in 
word  and  in  the  tongue,  and  the  love  in  deed  and  in 
tVuth  which  is  ready  to  lay  down  life  for  the  brethren, 
as  •'  he  "  laid  down  his  life  for  us  I.  3  16 18.  This  in- 
stance recalls  the  Epistle  of  S.  James  2  15 16,  though 
the  single  point  of  comparison  rather  serves  to  direct 
attention  to  the  contrast  which  between  these  two 
epistles  is  in  every  other  respect  so  marked.  There 
is  in  fact  no  greater  contrast  within  the  New  Testa- 
ment than  that  between  the  Epistle  of  S.  James,  with 
its  many  moral  precepts  unrelated  by  any  moral 
theory  ;  and  that  of  S.  John,  with  its  single  precept 


POSITIVE  coxcErr  of  saivation 


107 


of  love,  as  the  outcome  of  his  whole  theoloi^y.  The 
concrete  examples  of  discipline,  admonition,  and 
exhortation,  with  which  S.  Paul's  Epistles  abound, 
stand  also  in  strong  contrast  to  the  generalities  of 
S.  John's  Epistle.  This  however  is  referrible  in  part 
to  the  fact  that  S.  John's  work  is  not  properly  an 
epistle;  it  is  rather  a  dissertation  accompanying  his 
Gospel,  and  its  aim  and  destination  is  too  general  to 
allow  of  reference  to  the  particular  situation  of  any 
individual  community.  We  learn  from  the  Third 
Epistle,  which  is  a  personal  letter,  how  S.  John  might 
deal  with  particular  cases  of  discipline  III.  9  >". 

It  is  however  a  ground  of  surprise,  that  S.  John, 
who  was  the  companion  of  Jesus  throughout  his 
earthly  ministry,  and  who  represents  Christian  moral- 
ity in  terms  of  likeness  to  God  as  he  was  revealed  in 
Jesus,  nevertheless  does  not  —  any  more  than  S.  Paul 
—  adduce  the  traits  of  Jesus'  earthly  life  as  the  pat- 
tern for  the  disciples'  imitation.  Here,  as  through- 
out the  New  Testament,  it  is  the  imitation  of  God 
which  is  the  rule  of  the  Christian  life;  and  it  is  there- 
fore just  those  features  of  Jesus'  life  in  which  he  most 
conspicuously  transcended  the  human  measure  and 
manifested  the  divine,  which  are  set  forth  as  the 
disciples'  example.  As  S.  Paul  thought  of  even  "  the 
meekness  of  Christ "  II.  Cor.  10  «,  as  manifested  tran- 
scendently  not  in  his  earthly  walk,  but  in  his  descent 
from  heaven  to  earth,  Phil.  2  3-8  ;  so  S.  John  sees  love 
exemplified  not  in  Jesus'  kindly  intercourse  with  his 
disciples,  but  in  his  gift  of  his  life  for  them  15  13,  I. 
3  16  (his  love  *'  unto  the  end  "  13  «)»  ^'^^J  i'^  God's  gift 
of  his  Son  3  i^  I.  4  9.  It  is  therefore  Christ's  sacrifice 
of  his  life  which  is  the  example  of  love  for  the  world, 


198  THE   LIFE   MANIFESTED 

and  when  S.  John  expresses  the  norm  of  Christian 
conduct  under  any  other  terms,  it  is  by  such  general 
conceptions  as,  walking  in  the  light,  as  he  is  in  the 
light  I.  I  7,  or,  "  He  that  saith  he  abideth  in  him 
ought  himself  also  to  walk  even  as  he  walked  "  I.  2  6. 
The  term  "  walking "  represents  the  most  general 
conception  under  which  conduct  can  be  regarded, 
and  in  reference  to  this  last  passage,  S.  Augustine 
points  out  that '' walking  "  maybe  "bearing"  only, 
\^Chri5ttis~\  fixHS  in  criice  erat  et  in  ipsa  via  ambulabat  : 
ipsa  est  via  caritatis.  There  is  another  general  con- 
ception under  which  S.  John  represents  the  conduct 
required  of  the  Christian :  that  is  the  Old  Testament 
conception  of  righteousness.  As  he  emphasises  the 
righteousness  of  the  Father  1725  I.  I  9,  and  of  Christ 
I.  2  1 ;  so  he  says,  *'  If  ye  know  that  he  is  righteous, 
ye  know  that  every  one  also  that  doeth  righteousness 
is  begotten  of  him"  I.  2  29.  Righteousness  is  with 
S.  John  not  a  soteriological,  but  an  ethical  concep- 
tion ;  there  is  no  trace  of  S.  Paul's  idea  of  imputed 
righteousness ;  on  the  contrary  he  warns  his  readers 
against  the  misinterpretation  to  which  this  conception 
was  so  liable :  **  Children,  let  no  man  lead  you  astray : 
he  that  doeth  righteousness  is  righteous,  even  as  he 
is  righteous "  I.  3  7  cf.  v.  10.  Finally  we  have  the 
ritual  conceptions  of  consecration  and  purity:  '*  And 
for  their  sakes  I  consecrate  (or  sanctify)  myself,  that 
they  themselves  also  maybe  sanctified  in  truth  "17  19. 
And  in  I.  3  3  "  Every  one  that  hath  this  hope  on  him 
purifieth  himself,  even  as  he  is  pure." 

As  the  divine  life  which  was  in  the  Logos  became 
manifested  as  love,  and  so  was  the  light  of  men  i  4; 


POSITIVE    CONCEPT  OF  SALVATION  199 

SO  must  also  that  eternal  life,  which  has  been  thereby 
The  Hew  Com-  imparted  to  believers,  manifest  itself  in 
mandment  ^j^^m    likewise    as    li-ht   and   love.      This 

must  be  displayed  not  only  in  such  a  way  as  will 
satisfy  themselves  of  the  reality  of  their  possession  of 
life;  but  that  the  world  may  know  that  they  arc 
Christ's  disciples  13  35.  This  is  S.  John's  most  char- 
acteristic way  of  representing  love  in  the  disciple  as  \ 
the  spontaneous  fruit  of  life.  It  is  therefore  the  more 
noteworthy  that  he  should  express  it  also  in  terms  of 
law,  as  a  commandment  13  34.  Few  as  are  the  ethical 
precepts  attributed  to  Jesus  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  he 
is  nevertheless  represented  repeatedly  as  enjoining  the 
keeping  of  his  commandments;  and  this  exhortation 
is  taken  up  by  S.  John  still  more  frequently  in  the 
Epistle.  We  have  already  remarked  that  S-  John  has 
no  aversion  to  the  expression  of  Christian  morality 
in  terms  of  commandment,  although  his  use  of  the 
word  law  (^vofio^)  exclusively  in  reference  to  Judaism 
probably  indicates  his  consciousness  of  the  radical 
difference  between  the  two  dispensations.  He  hadi 
however  as  completely  superseded  the  legalistic  stand- 
point as  had  S.  Paul  himself.  And  his  idea  of  the 
"new  commandment"  has  nothing  in  common  with 
that  of  the  "new  law"  (Katv6<;  v6/jlo<;),  which  early  in 
the  second  century  became  current  to  designate  the 
Christian  revelation  as  the  successor  and  counterpart 
of  the  Old  Testament  Law.  It  was  by  including  all 
particular  commandments  in  the  one  commandment 
of  love  according  to  the  measure  of  God's  love,  that 
S.  John  dissolved  the  whole  conception  of  Jewish 
legalism  as  it  was  expressed  by  '*  the  ten  thousand 
precepts  of  the  Torah." 


200  THE  LIFE   MANIFESTED 

But  if  we  can  find  no  hint  of  legalism  in  S.  John's 
use  of  the  word  commandment,  we  do  find  in  it  a 
proof  of  his  close  relation  to  Old  Testament  thought, 
and  of  his  strong  emphasis  upon  the  moral  walk. 
S.  John  had  no  notion  of  a  contemplative  knowledge 
of  God  which  found  in  itself  its  end  and  satisfaction. 
To  know  God  was  to  keep  his  commandments  I.  2  3. 
Neither  did  he  know  of  any  love  of  God  which  was 
mere  feeling,  and  found  its  end  solely  in  religious 
adoration.  To  love  God  is  to  keep  his  word  and  his 
commandments  I.  25  52  seq.  11.  6.  True  love  is 
shown  in  work  (eV  ep7ro)  I.  3  is,  as  God's  love  also 
was  displayed  in  his  work  3  16  I.  4  9.  Love  to  Christ 
shows  itself  by  keeping  his  commandments  14  21 23,  as 
his  love  to  the  Father  was  shown  by  fulfilling  his 
commandment  14  31.  No  one  was  better  aware  than 
S.  John  that  the  tree  of  knowledge  is  not  the  tree  of 
life ;  that  it  is  not  knowing,  but  doing  which  makes 
blessed  13  17;  that  to  the  having  of  Jesus'  command- 
ments, must  be  added  the  doing  of  them  14  21 ;  to  the 
hearing  of  his  sayings,  the  keeping  of  them  12  47.  The 
presence  of  the  light  in  the  world  is  an  admonition  to 
walk  in  the  light  12  35.  As  God  has  revealed  to  men 
his  truth,  so  is  it  his  commandment  that  they  walk  in 
the  truth  II.  4. 

All  commandments  are  finally  included  in  the  one 
commandment  of  love  to  the  brethren.  S.  John 
actually  calls  this  "the  commandment"  II.  5,  and 
characterises  it  absolutely  as  "  his  (Jesus')  command- 
ment"  I.  3  23  421,  as  indeed  Jesus  himself  had  called 
it  "  my  commandment  "  1 5  "  17.  In  the  commandment 
of  love,  S.John  sums  up  the  whole  "  message"  I.  3  n, 
and  the  peculiarity  of  his  ethical  conception  appears 


POS/TIVE   COXCEPT  OF  SAIA'ATIOX  201 

especially  in  I.  3  k,  where  he  represents  riL^htcoiisness 
as  equivalent  to  brotherly  love.  This  whole  con- 
ception however  is  thoroughly  in  accord  with  the 
general  characteristics  of  S.  John's  thought.  As  he 
saw  the  revelation  of  God  not  only  in  Jesus'  words, 
but  in  his  manifestation  as  a  whole ;  so,  rather  than 
in  his  individual  precepts,  it  was  in  the  total  impression 
of  his  life,  as  love  unto  the  end,  that  he  read  the  new 
commandment.  As  God's  revelation  of  himself  was 
his  law  for  the  old  covenant,  so  was  the  new  reve- 
lation in  Christ  the  new  commandment.  It  is  char- 
acteristic of  S.  John  that  he  represents  the  imitation 
of  Jesus  under  the  terms  of  the  ethical  "  ought  " 
(ocpeiXeL)  I.   2  6  3  16  r/;  411. 

It  doubtless  seems  strange  that  Jesus  in  enjoining 
love  should  call  it  a  ncza  commandment;  as  though 
it  had  never  been  recognised  in  the  old  Law.  It 
appears  indeed  as  if  the  Synoptic  account  also  would 
represent  as  original  with  Jesus  the  summary  of  the 
Law  in  the  double  commandment  of  love  to  God,  and 
to  one's  neighbour,  Mat.  22  35  se^j.  Mk.  12  28  si\/.  But 
on  the  other  hand  a  certain  lawyer  summarised  the 
Law  in  the  same  terms,  Lk.  10  25  set]. ;  and  since  these 
words  are  a  quotation  from  two  of  the  most  familiar 
passages  of  the  Law,  Deut.  6  5,  Lev.  19  i^  it  would  not 
be  strange  if  they  had  been  a  common  formula  with 
the  scribes.  S.  John  himself  meditated  upon  the 
paradox  involved  in  the  name  new  commandment. 
In  the  Second  Epistle  he  says,  "  Not  as  though  I 
wrote  to  thee  a  new  commandment,  but  that  which 
we  had  from  the  beginning,  that  we  love  one  another" 
II.  5.  Again  in  the  First  I^pistle  he  calls  it,  "  The 
message   which   ye  heard   from  the  beginning"  3m. 


202  THE   LIFE  MANIFESTED 

And  yet  it  is  also  new,  at  once  both  old  and  new,  as 
he  says  in  the  second  chapter,  "  Beloved,  no  new  com- 
mandment write  I  unto  you,  but  an  old  commandment 
which  ye  had  from  the  beginning.  Again,  a  new 
commandment  write  I  unto  you  "  I  .3  7  s  ^.  I.  3  9  10. 

The  significance  of  Jesus'  designation  of  love  as  a 
new  commandment  is  fully  seen  only  when  we  study 
the  occasion  upon  which  he  first  enunciated  it  13  31-3;. 
With  the  departure  of  the  betrayer,  Jesus  found  him- 
self at  last  alone  in  the  company  of  his  true  disciples, 
whom  he  had  gathered  out  of  the  world,  and  whom 
he  had  finally  purified.  In  the  constitution  of  this 
little  company  he  sees  his  earthly  work  finished,  and 
himself  and  his  Father  glorified  13  31.  As  one  family 
they  had  just  partaken  of  the  new  covenant  meal 
which  Jesus  had  instituted  ;  he  himself  looks  forward 
to  his  departure  from  them  13  3233,  and  to  his  offer- 
ing of  the  covenant  sacrifice  17  19.  When  therefore 
he  gives  to  his  disciples  a  commandment  which  shall 
distinguish  them  from  all  the  world  1335,  what  can 
this  mean  but  the  new  law  for  the  New  Covenant? 
This  is  a  commandment  which  fulfils  all  that  the 
prophets  had  foretold  of  the  law  of  the  New  Cove- 
nant. As  a  law  of  love,  it  is  of  course  written  upon 
the  heart,  Jer.  31  33  32  40;  there  is  in  this  law  no  servi- 
tude 15  15,  but  the  only  true  freedom  8  32  seq.  God's 
law  in  this  form  ceases  to  be  a  burden.  As  in  Mat. 
1 1  30  Jesus  says,  '*  My  yoke  is  easy  and  my  burden  is 
light;"  so  S.  John  says,  "His  commandments  are 
not  grievous  "  I.  5  3.  Love,  as  the  social  law  of  the 
New  Covenant,  is  directed  specially  towards  "  one 
another ;  "  as  the  love  of  the  Father  is  showed  pre- 
eminently towards  his  children,  so  is  their  love  to  be 


POSITIVE   CONCEPT  OF  SAIVATION  203 

directed  especially  towards  the  brethren.  This  partic- 
ularism is  brought  out  with  great  force  by  the  whole 
character  of  S.  John's  representation.  It  cannot 
however  be  considered  a  retrogression  from  the  stand- 
point of  Mat.  544  seq. ;  for  in  this  commandment 
the  whole  wealth  of  Jesus'  love  comes  to  expres- 
sion, and  the  very  constitution  of  the  new  com- 
munity guards  it  against  the  narrow  and  exclusive 
particularism  which  marked  the  national  theocracy. 
In  the  very  announcement  of  this  commandment, 
Jesus  contemplates  the  relation  of  his  disciples  to  the 
whole  world  13  35.  "  Hereby  shall  all  men  know  that 
ye  are  my  disciples ;  "  —  by  a  love  which  in  its  in- 
tensity is  displayed  especially  towards  the  household 
of  faith;  but  which  triumphs  through  the  Church  for 
the  world. 

But  there  is  still  another  respect  in  which  this 
commandment  is  new.  It  is  new  not  only  because  it 
was  formulated  for  a  new  relationship,  but  because  it 
was  enjoined  according  to  a  new  measure,  or  meas- 
urelessness:  "As  I  have  loved  you"  1334.  So  S. 
John  explains  in  I.  2  s,  it  is  new,  ''  because  the  dark- 
ness passeth  away,  and  the  true  light  already  shin- 
eth."  The  love  of  Jesus  was  about  to  be  displayed 
in  its  fulness  —  et?  reXo?  —  "Greater  love  hath  no 
man  than  this,  that  a  man  lay  down  his  life  for  his 
friends  "  15  13.  Henceforth  we  have  a  new  definition 
of  love;  and  S.  John  says,  "  Hereby  know  we  love, 
because  he  laid  down  his  life  for  us ;  and  we 
ought  to  lay  down  our  lives  for  the  brethren  "  I.  3  .^.. 
Here  we  have  a  new  ideal  of  love ;  —  love  in  cxcelsis. 
Love  with  S  John  is  not  a  mere  sentiment  of  bene- 
volence  and    good    feeling,   but   a   passion;    not   the 


204  ^^^^  ^^^^^  MANIFESTED 

correlative  of  dislike,  but  of  hate  and  murder;  — 
**  not  as  Cain  was  of  the  Evil  One  and  slew  his 
brother  "  I.  3  12. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  in  S.  John's  writings  there  is 
no  commandment  of  love  to  God,  nor  even  any  ex- 
hortation of  love  to  Christ.  And  yet  in  the  Old 
Testament  this  was  the  commandment  which  held 
the  first  place  cf.  Mat.  22  38.  This  commandment 
was  there  however  the  more  necessary  because  of  the 
merely  formal  relation  in  which  the  people  of  the 
Old  Covenant  stood  to  God  as  Father,  and  Jesus  had 
actually  to  remark  upon  the  lack  of  love  to  God  on 
the  part  of  the  Jews  5  42.  But  as  the  relation  of  the 
Christian  community  to  God  is  a  real  and  inward 
one,  founded  not  only  in  his  election,  but  in  his 
begetting  of  them ;  and  on  the  part  of  the  disciples, 
in  their  immediate  experience  of  God,  love  to  God 
was  a  matter  of  course,  and  throughout  S.  John's 
writings  it  is  simply  assumed.  It  is  a  matter  of 
course  that  every  child  of  God  *'  loveth  him  that 
begat  "  (^rov  <y6vvrj(TavTa),  and  it  is  a  consequence  of 
this,  that  he  "  loveth  him  also  that  is  begotten  of 
him"  I.  5  I.  The  two  commandments  are  really  one: 
"  for  he  that  loveth  not  his  brother  whom  he  hath 
seen,  cannot  love  God  whom  he  hath  not  seen ;  "  but 
as  the  love  of  God  is  the  postulate  of  the  Christian 
community,  only  the  love  of  the  brethren  remains  to 
be  enjoined  as  a  commandment;  — "  And  this  com- 
mandment have  we  from  him,  that  he  that  loveth  God 
love  his  brother  also"  I.  42021.  How  thoroughly  fun- 
damental this  idea  is  with  S.  John,  we  see  from  the 
turn  which  it  gives  to  his  expression.  "  Beloved,  if 
God  so  loved  us"  — we  might  expect  the  obvious  de- 


POSITIVE   CONCEPT  OE  SAIl'AIVOA 


205 


duction,  so  we  ought  to  love  him  —  but  instead  we 
have,  '*  we  ought  also  to  love  one  another"  I.  4... 
Likewise  in  I.  3  16,  •*  Hereby  we  know  love,  because 
he  laid  down  his  life  for  us:  and  we  ought  to  lay 
down  our  lives"  —  not  for  him,  but  —  "for  one  an- 
other." This  is  precisely  in  accord  with  Jesus'  signi- 
ficant teaching  according  to  the  Synoptic  Gospels : 
"  Inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  unto  one  of  these  my  brethren, 
even  these  least,  ye  did  it  unto  me"  Mat.  2540  cf. 
John  13  20.  The  only  way  in  which,  after  Christ's 
departure  cf.  12  78,  the  disciples'  love  can  be  showed 
towards  him  **  in  deed,"  is  by  works  of  lovingkindness 
towards  his  brethren  I.  3  17  is. 

As  S.  John  comprised  in  the  one  idea  of  love,  the 
whole  conception  of  Christian  morality;  he  must 
especially  have  associated  with  it  the  ideal  of  meek- 
ness and  lowliness  of  heart,  Mat.  1 1  29,  which  is  so 
significant  a  trait  of  Jesus'  precept  and  example  in 
the  Synoptic  account.  And  in  fact,  just  before  he 
enjoined  the  new  commandment  he  had  washed  the 
Apostles'  feet  13  12-17.  In  this  symbolic  act  he  repre- 
sented, more  clearly  than  his  words  had  ever  done, 
the  character  of  the  meekness  which  he  required.  It 
was  not  thinking  lowly  of  oneself,  nor  adopting  a 
lowly  attitude;  but  assuming  a  lowly  position.  It 
was  a  yoke,  a  burden,  the  willing  (**  in  heart  ")  as- 
sumption of  the  position  of  a  servant;  — and  this  not 
with  reference  to  God  or  Christ  (a  position  too  obvi- 
ously just),  but  towards  one's  fellow  men.  "If  I  then 
your  Lord  and  Master,  have  washed  your  feet,  ye 
also  ought"  —  note  the  same  turn  of  expression  we 
have  been  studying  —  '*  to  wash  one  another's  feet." 
It  was  not  enough  that  S.   Paul  recognised   himself 


2o6  THE  LIFE   MANIFESTED 

"  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,"  Rom.  i  i ;  he  also  says, 
we  recognise  "  ourselves  as  your  servants  for  Jesus' 
sake  "  II.  Cor.  4  5. 

Corresponding  to  S.  John's  representation  of  the 
Christian  morality  in  terms  of  a  commandment,  he 
makes  prominent  also  the  idea  of  reward.  The  single 
passage  in  which  he  regards  hope  as  the  motive  of 
Christian  conduct  I.  3  3,  implies  this  conception. 
There  is  the  same  implication  in  the  exhortation  to 
abide  in  Christ,  "  that  we  may  have  boldness,  and 
not  be  ashamed  before  him  at  his  coming"  I.  228; 
and  in  I.  417  "boldness  in  the  day  of  judgment"  is 
regarded  as  the  reward  of  perfected  love.  The  idea 
of  reward  is  more  expressly  represented  in  the  Second 
Epistle  V.  8  than  in  any  other  passage  in  the  Scrip- 
ture :  "  Look  to  yourselves,  that  ye  lose  not  the 
things  which  we  [or  ye]  have  wrought,  but  that  ye 
receive  a  full  reward."  This  is  not  entirely  pecuHar 
to  the  Epistle.  The  idea  of  ''  wages "  is  at  least 
figuratively  applied  to  the  religious  sphere  in  436. 
And  even  Jesus*  own  work,  which  is  done  in  fulfil- 
ment of  the  Father's  commandment  10  18  12  49,  looks 
for  the  Father's  reward.  He  expects  to  be  glorified, 
because  he  himself  had  glorified  the  Father,  and  had 
accomplished  the  work  which  he  had  given  him  to 
do  1745-  And  in  15  10  the  abiding  of  the  disciples  in 
Jesus'  love,  is  conditioned  upon  their  keeping  his 
commandments;  as  his  abiding  in  the  Father's  love, 
is  conditioned  upon  his  keeping  the  Father's  com- 
mandments. 

We  have  already  discussed  S.  John's  doctrine  of  the 
knowledge  of  God.     But  S.  John  employs  the  word  to 


POSITIVE   CONCEPT  OE  SALVATION  20; 

know  (both  otSa/jLev  and  jLvcocTKo/jLev)  also  in  another 
Confidence         ^"^  ^^^^  different  way.    The  trait  we  have 
here  to  remark  belongs  exclusively  to  the 
Epistle,  and  is  one  of  its  most  conspicuous  features. 
It  was  natural  for  S.  John,  who  regarded  salvation  as 
a  present  possession,  to  think  of  it  also  as  fact  which 
was    capable   of  being    experienced  and    known,   of 
being  also  tested  and  verified.     Therefore  he  says: 
"  These  things  have  I  written  unto  you,  that  ye  may 
know  that  ye  have  eternal  life  "  5  13.     And  this  con- 
fidence of  salvation  is  expressed  pre-eminently  in  the 
last  verses  of  the  Epistle :   *'  We  know  that  we  are  of 
God,   and  the  whole  world  lieth  in   the   Evil  One. 
And  we  know  that  the  Son  of  God  has  come,  and 
hath  given  us  an  understanding,  that  we  know  him 
that  is  true,  and  we  are  in  him  that  is  true,  in  his  Son 
Jesus  Christ."     This  knowledge  of  one's  salvation  is 
not  an  intuition,  nor  does  it  rest  upon  any  subjective 
ground :   there  is  no  more  practical  trait  in  S.  John's 
writings  than   the  character  of  the  tests  which   he 
proposes  for  the  assurance  of  salvation.     His  funda- 
mental maxim  is  this :   "  If  we  know  that  he  is  right- 
eous,  we    know  that    every   one    also    that    doeth 
righteousness  is  begotten  of  him"  I.  229.     Strongly 
as  the  orthodox  faith  is  emphasised  as  the  test  for 
discerning  between  the  spirits  of  error  and  the  Spirit 
of  truth  I.  4. 1  c/.  2  22  23,  it  is  never  expressly  mentioned 
as  a  ground  for  a  disciple's  certainty  of  possessing 
eternal  life.     As  love  is  the  test  whereby  the  world 
may  know  the  disciples  of  Christ  1435,  and   as   the 
false  brother  is  discerned  by  his  lack  of  compassion 
towards  a  brother  in  need  I.  3  17;   so  has   each  dis- 
ciple to  judge  of  the  reality  of  his  own  salvation  by 


208  THE  LIFE  MANIFESTED 

the  same  objective  test,  by  the  proof  of  a  love  v/hich 
is  "  in  deed  and  in  truth"  I.  3  is.  **  Hereby  shall  we 
know  that  we  are  of  the  truth  "  I.  3  19.  On  the  other 
hand  it  is  said :  **  Hereby  we  know  that  we  love  the 
children  of  God,  when  we  love  God  and  keep  his 
commandments"  5  2.  But  as  love  of  the  brethren  i? 
the  most  objective  test,  it  is  that  which  is  most  in- 
sisted upon :  '*  We  know  that  we  have  passed  from 
death  unto  life,  because  we  love  the  brethren "  3  m. 
It  is  practically  the  same  thing  when  the  keeping  of 
his  commandment,  or  his  word,  is  made  the  test. 
We  have  in  2  3  a  highly  characteristic  expression : 
"  Hereby  we  know  that  we  kiiow  him,  if  we  keep  his 
commandments  "  cf.  2  s.  There  is  also  a  test  of  a 
different  character,  which  is  at  least  not  a  purely  sub- 
jective one ;  that  is  the  witness  of  the  Spirit,  who  is 
not  only  a  witness  to  the  historical  facts  of  Christ's 
life,  but  a  witness  also  to  his  abiding  presence  in  his 
disciples  3  24  4  13.  But  not  only  may  the  disciple  be 
thus  confidently  assured  of  that  which  constitutes  the 
Christian's  present  possession;  in  one  of  the  rare 
instances  in  which  S.  John  looks  forward  to  the  per- 
fection of  the  believer's  life  in  the  other  world,  he 
regards  that  too  as  the  object  of  knowledge :  "  We 
know  that  when  he  shall  be  manifested,  we  shall  be 
like  him,  for  we  shall  see  him  as  he  is  "  3  2.  But  as 
the  future  life  is  only  the  perfection  of  that  which 
we  now  have,  and  advances  to  perfection  ever 
by  the  same  means  (that  is  by  the  knowledge  of 
God),  he  might  well  count  that  the  future  life  was 
assured  by  the  verification  of  eternal  life  in  the 
present. 


POSITIVE   CONCEPT  OF  SAL  VA  TION  209 

Into  close  connection  with  the  Christian  confidence 
which  we  have  just  been  considering,  S.  John  brings 
Pra  er  ^^   ^^^^  ^^  prayer :   "  If  our  heart  con- 

demn us  not,  we  have  boldness  towards 
God,  and  whatsoever  we  ask  we  receive  of  him, 
because  we  keep  his  commandments,  and  do  the 
things  which  are  pleasing  in  his  sight  "  I.  3  22.  •'  And 
this  is  the  boldness  we  have  towards  him,  that,  if  we 
ask  anything  according  to  his  will,  he  heareth  us : 
and  if  we  know  that  he  heareth  us  whatsoever  we  ask, 
we  know  that  we  have  the  petitions  which  we  have 
asked  of  him  "  I.  5  m  15. 

In  addition  to  the  great  prayer  of  the  seventeenth 
chapter,  there  are  more  frequent  references  to  Jesus' 
prayers  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  than  in  any  other.  It 
has  been  noted  that  the  prayers  of  Jesus  are  expressed 
by  the  verb  ipayrdcD  and  those  of  the  disciples,  by 
aiTeco.  The  attempt  however  to  explain  the  principle 
of  S.  John's  consistent  discrimination  of  these  two 
terms  has  not  been  fruitful :  they  both  mean,  to  ask, 
and  S.  John  does  not  use  at  all  the  specific  word  for 
prayer,  irpoaevxei'V.  He  comes  nearer  however  to 
giving  a  doctrine  of  prayer  than  does  any  other 
writer  in  the  New  Testament.  The  possibility  of 
address  to  God  in  prayer  was  simply  assumed  by  all 
Christian  writers.  Prayer  was  not  a  new  thing  with 
Christianity;  but  prayer  in  the  name  of  Jesus  was, 
and  it  is  upon  this  S.  John  dwells.    ' 

Participation  in  the  Messianic  salvation  was  in 
prophecy  made  dependent  upon  "  calling  upon  the 
name  of  the  Lord  "  Joel  3  5.  S.  Peter  and  S.  Paul 
agree  in  interpreting  this  as  a  calling  upon  Jesus  as 
one  who  has  been  exalted  to  be  Lord,  Acts  2  21  cf,  36 

14 


2IO  THE  LIFE   MANIFESTED 

Rom.  iOi2seg.  "Calling  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  " 
appears  together  with  baptism  as  the  condition  of 
salvation,  Acts  22  i6.  And  in  Acts  9  14  I.  Cor.  i  2 
II.  Tim.  2  22  Christians  are  actually  distinguished  as : 
"  Those  who  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."  So  important  was  it,  and  so  distinguishing 
a  characteristic  of  the  Christian  community,  that  they 
addressed  their  prayers  to  Jesus  as  well  as  to  God. 
This  conception  appears  also  in  S.  John's  Gospel, 
though  the  early  and  prevalent  misunderstanding  of 
his  expression  has  occasioned  even  a  corruption  in 
the  text  upon  which  our  Authorised  Version  is  based. 
We  have  however  even  in  that  text  Jesus*  express 
assurance  that  /le  himself  will  answer  his  disciples' 
prayers :  "  And  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in  my  name, 
that  will  /  do  "  14  13.  But  according  to  the  true 
text  (according  to  the  oldest  MSS.  J<  B  and  C  and  most 
Versions  cf.  Tischendorf,  Westcott  and  Hort,  and 
Rev.  Ver.)  prayer  is  thought  of  as  being  offered  also 
directly  to  Jesus :  "  If  ye  shall  ask  me  anything  in  my 
name,  that  will  I  do  "  14  14.  The  omission  of  "  me  " 
in  this  verse  was  evidently  due  to  the  feeling  that 
there  is  an  incongruity  in  the  thought  of  addressing 
Jesus  himself  in  his  7iame.  From  the  true  text  how- 
ever we  see  that  no  such  incongruity  existed  for 
S.  John ;  we  see  on  the  contrary  that  he  does  not 
speak  of  prayer  directed  to  the  Father  in  Jesus'  name. 
In  15  «6  the  phrase  **  in  my  name  "  is  to  be  connected 
with  "  he  may  give,"  as  appears  very  clearly  in  the 
parallel  expression  16  23  (according  to  the  true  text. 
See  Rev.  Ver.).  According  to  the  conception  that  ask- 
ing in  Jesus'  name  means  direct  address  to  him,  we  have 
a  suitable  interpretation  for   1626:   ''In  that  day  ye 


POSITIVE   CONCEPT  OE  SALVATION  211 

shall  ask  in  my  name ;  and  I  say  not  unto  you  that  I 
will  pray  the  Father  for  you."  Jesus  here  explains  to 
his  disciples  that  prayers  addressed  to  him  do  not 
have  to  be  passed  on  to  the  Father.  The  exalted 
Christ  is  so  thoroughly  the  dispenser  of  all  gifts  to 
the  Church,  that  whatever  the  Father  himself  gives  is 
given  in  Jesus'  name  1426  15  16  1623.  This  is  not  in 
any  wise  to  derogate  from  the  Father's  supremacy ; 
for  in  the  verse  we  have  just  quoted  it  is  assumed 
that  the  Father  is  pre-eminently  the  hearer  of 
prayer,  and  Jesus'  power  to  answer  prayers  directed 
to  him,  is  grounded  upon  the  fact  that  **  the  Father 
himself  loveth  you,  because  ye  have  loved  me."  And 
in  14 13  the  fulfilment  of  the  disciples*  petitions  by 
Jesus  is  said  to  be  a  glorification  of  the  Father  in  the 
Son.  There  is  a  contradiction  in  Jesus'  representation 
of  the  possibility  of  addressing  prayers  to  him  :  whereas 
he  says  in  1623,  "And  in  that  day  ye  shall  ask 
(epwrrjo-ere)  me  nothing.  Verily  verily  I  say  unto 
you,  If  ye  shall  ask  anything  of  the  Father,  he  will 
give  it  you  in  my  name ;  "  we  have  on  the  other 
hand  in  1626  "  In  that  day  ye  shall  ask  (alrrjo-eaOe)  in 
my  name,"  and  in  1414  "  If  ye  shall  ask  me  anything 
in  my  name,  that  will  I  do."  It  has  been  noted  that 
the  verb  used  in  the  first  instance  is  that  which  is 
elsewhere  used  only  in  reference  to  Jesus'  prayers, 
and  it  may  be  that  an  understanding  of  S.  John's  dis- 
crimination between  these  two  words  would  resolve  the 
contradiction.  But  a  careful  study  of  the  passage 
shows  how  difficult  it  is  to  give  them  any  interpretation 
which  does  not  involve  some  confusion.  We  can  see 
however  in  a  general  way,  from  this  v/hole  range  of 
passages  that  S.  John  would  represent  the  equivalence 


212  THE   LIFE   MANIFESTED 

of  prayers  addressed  to  the  Son  and  to  the  Father. 
This  was  in  accordance  with  the  whole  trend  of  his 
theology.  As  in  the  Epistle  the  reference  of  the 
personal  pronouns  seems  often  to  be  to  the  Father 
or  to  the  Son  indifferently;  so  even  here  we  have 
a  perfectly  neutral  expression  in  regard  to  prayer: 
**  Ask  whatever  ye  will,  and  it  shall  be  done  unto 
you  "  157.  In  these  parting  words  of  Jesus  it  was  in 
no  wise  necessary  to  emphasise  the  fact  that  the 
Father  is  a  hearer  and  answerer  of  prayer;  but  it 
was  decidedly  necessary  for  him  to  assure  his  disciples 
in  that  moment  of  farewell  that,  though  they  might 
no  longer  address  him  as  they  had  been  accustomed 
to  do  while  he  was  on  earth,  nevertheless  prayer  to 
the  Father  constituted  intercourse  also  with  him,  and 
the  Father's  gifts  were  given  in  his  name.  More  than 
that;  they  may  ask  him  directly  in  his  name. 
Hitherto  his  disciples  had  talked  to  him  familiarly; 
but  they  shall  do  so  no  longer  16  n.  The  old  inter- 
course is  about  to  be  broken  off,  but  a  new  form  of 
intercourse  is  to  take  its  place,  as  Jesus  ceases  to  be 
the  object  of  their  social  faculty  and  becomes  the  satis- 
faction of  their  religious  nature :  *'  Hitherto  ye  have 
asked  nothing  in  my  name :  ask,  and  ye  shall  receive, 
that  your  joy  may  be  fulfilled  "  1624.  We  see  espe- 
cially from  this  last  phrase  that  in  all  of  his  utterances 
about  prayer  Jesus  aimed  at  comforting  his  disciples 
with  the  assurance  that  the  intercourse  in  which  they 
then  rejoiced  would  be  continued  — though  in  a  new 
form,  in  his  name,  that  is  in  such  wise  as  they  held  in- 
tercourse with  God  —  and  would  be  proved  by  the 
reception  of  the  gifts  which  they  asked.  It  is  for  this 
reason  his  words  are  so  unqualified  and  emphatic: 


POSITIVE   CONCEPT  OF  SALVATION  213 

"  Whatsoever  ye  ask,  it  shall  be  done."  We  have 
however  in  the  Epistle  the  qualification,  "  according 
to  his  will  "5  14;  and  in  the  verse  following  we  have  a 
thought  with  which  doubtless  S.  John  had  often  com- 
forted his  own  heart  in  view  of  the  apparent  failure  of 
his  prayers :  "  And  if  we  know  that  he  heareth  us 
whatsoever  we  ask,  we  know  that  we  have  the 
petitions  which  we  have  asked  of  him." 

It  is  after  all  surprising  that  S.  John's  expression 
"  ask  in  his  name  "  should  have  been  so  commonly 
misunderstood.  The  phrase  more  usual  in  the  New 
Testament  is,  as  we  have  noted  above,  "  to  call  on 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  But  S.  John's 
expression  stands,  in  one  respect  at  least,  much  nearer 
to  the  Hebrew  formula  from  which  they  both  are 
derived.  The  Hebrew  mn^  DtiO  N*)p  cf.  Joel  3  5 
is  strictly  "  to  call  in  the  name  of  Jehovah ;  "  and 
S.  John's  expression  is,  apart  from  his  substitution  of 
the  word  "ask"  for  "call,"  the  simplest  possible 
adaptation  of  the  Hebrew  phrase:  "  to  call  (or  ask)  in 
the  name  of  Jesus."  This  interpretation  is  substanti- 
ated unanimously  by  the  Greek  commentators.  And 
at  all  events,  from  the  correct  text  of  14  m,  we  see  that 
the  understanding  of  this  phrase  which  at  first  sight 
seems  to  us  most  obvious  —  a  reference,  that  is,  to  the 
use  of  the  name  of  Jesus  as  the  concluding  formula  of 
prayer  addressed  to  the  Father,  expressive  of  the  fact 
that  the  ground  of  confident  approach  is  his  merit  — 
that  this  understanding  is  in  reality  by  no  means 
adequate  inasmuch  as  it  fails  to  aft'ord  any  endurable 
interpretation  of  the  expression,  "  ask  me  in  my 
name."  It  is  a  consideration  of  great  importance 
that  we  have  here  an  explicit  reference  by  S.  John 


214  "^^^  ^^^^   MANIFESTED 

to  prayer  addressed  to  Jesus:  it  is  of  scarcely  less 
moment  that  we  have  this  thought  expressed  by  so 
striking  a  Hebraism.  It  is  true  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment furnishes  no  precise  parallel  (such  e.  g.  as  **  call 
upon  me  in  my  name  Jehovah,")  but  such  an  ex- 
pression would  surely  not  be  foreign  to  the  profound 
Hebraic  conception  of  the  "  name."  Whether  or  not 
however  we  interpret  this  phrase  in  the  sense  of  direct 
address  to  Christ,  we  are  obliged  to  recognise  in  it 
the  pregnant  force  of  the  Hebrew  idea.  And  just  be- 
cause in  Hebrew  the  significance  of  the  '*  name  "  is  so 
large  and  so  inclusive,  we  cannot  be  surprised  at  the 
transition  (especially  in  162324)  from  "  asking  in  my 
name  "  to  **  receiving  in  my  name,"  which  appears  to 
us  so  sudden  and  so  harsh.  We  have  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment not  only  **  to  call  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  "  (or 
*'  in  my  name")  I.  Kings  18  24  Isa.  41  25  64  7  Zeph.  3  9 
Zech.  139  (and  elsewhere  frequently),  and,  to  lift  up 
one's  hands  in  his  name,  Ps.  63  4 ;  but,  to  "  walk  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  "  Micah  4  5  Zech.  10 12,  and  various 
other  expressions.  For  this  interpretation  in  general 
see  Franke,  Das  alte  Testament  bei  Johannes,  pp.  251 
scq. 

It  may  not  be  possible  to  account  completely  for 
S.  John's  use  of  the  word  "  ask  "  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  generic  word  for  prayer.  But  certainly  it  was 
not  intended  to  exclude  adoration  and  thanksgiving 
from  the  notion  of  prayer :  petition  being  the  most 
specific  conception  of  prayer  carries  all  else  with  it. 
We  can  see  too  that  the  prayer  of  petition  was  the 
most  apt  to  express  to  the  disciples  the  assurance  of 
continued  intercourse  with  Jesus.  For  it  is  only  by 
the  answer  to  prayer  that  the  reality  of  the  mutual 


POSITIVE    CO  ACCEPT  OF  SAfA'ATION  21  5 

relation  can  be  verified.  That  prayer  is  not  merely 
the  expression  of  man's  attitude  towards  God,  but  a 
veritable  means  of  communication  with  him,  involving 
also  a  reciprocal  response  on  his  part,  is  absolutely 
essential  to  S.  John's  conception.  For  prayer  is  a  part 
of  his  doctrine  of  fellowship.  The  ground  of  confi- 
dence in  prayer,  whether  it  be  addressed  to  the 
Father  or  to  the  Son,  is  this  :  "  For  the  Father  himself 
loveth  you"  1627.  And  the  condition  of  prayer  is: 
"  If  ye  abide  in  me,  ^nd  my  words  abide  in  you  "157. 
It  is  therefore  as  the  assurance  of  continued  fellow- 
ship with  Christ,  that  the  answer  to  prayer  is  said  to 
fulfil  the  Apostles' joy  1624; — an  expression  which 
is  almost  invariably  associated  with  the  fruition  of 
fellowship  in  one  or  another  of  its  forms ;  with  one 
another,  or  with  God  in  Christ  15  n  162022  I,  i  4. 
Prayer  is  not  only  the  fulfilment  of  the  joy  of  fel- 
lowship with  the  Father  and  the  Son;  it  has  also 
a  relation  to  the  fellowship  which  exists  among  the 
brethren.  S.  John  expressly  considers  the  subject  of 
intercessory  prayer :  "■  If  any  man  see  his  brother 
sinning  a  sin  not  unto  death,  he  shall  ask,  and  he  will 
give  him  life  "  I.  5  i^.  Prayer  for  a  sinning  brother  is 
a  special  example  of  intercession,  and  it  is  also  its 
most  specific  form.  The  brother  who  sins  is  cut  off 
from  the  Christian  fellowship.  All  sin  separates  from 
God ;  but  "  there  is  sin  not  unto  death  "  I.  5  17 ;  sin  that 
is,  which,  though  it  of  course  cuts  one  off  from  life, 
does  not  do  so  irretrievably.  As  the  sinner  is  thus 
cut  off  from  the  fellowship,  and  can  therefore  no 
longer  pray  in  the  covenant  Name,  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  brother  to  intercede  for  him,  and  God  will  give 
him  life. 


2l6  THE  LIFE  MANIFESTED 

When  we  review  from  this  point  the  whole  of 
S.  John's  theology,  it  is  impossible  not  to  recognise 
it,  at  once  in  its  profundity,  and  in  its  simplicity;  in 
its  close  attachment  to  God  in  Christ,  and  in  its  ready 
application  to  the  moral  walk ;  in  its  irenic  quality,  its 
unity,  and  its  transparency;  —  it  is  impossible  not  to 
recognise  it  as  the  fit  legacy  of  that  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved,  who  for  the  sake  of  his  witness  was  kept 
so  long  in  the  world,  but  now 

"  Lies  as  he  once  lay,  breast  to  breast  with  God.'* 


Date  Due 

An  4     '3?,               ■ 

1 

Wye   1 

^ , 

k 

1 

Mv  27  "J» 

*Pfi3      '6 

*  3    :?? 

IHl^JiiiiliiilTiij 1 

IWiMMA 

»2    "SS 

r™^ 

C'  1$  °4fl 

AP?r?^*^^' 

pi7  ^ 

ni    M^.., 

u^SSS 

E.v^...' 

m 

1 
1 

M'  i:  "   '4 

G-  ifi    r^ 

FAoyuY 

F  13    ' 

i 

fACULTY 

1 

fti- 

1 

FACULTY 

1 

1 

,Tt 

_  V-:-  ''  1 

jg 

i 

3&r2   #; 

1    1012  01018  6304 


